MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083184721 · doi:10.62951/ijeepa.v1i1.395

Coding Futures: Rethinking Digital Literacy Policies in Senior High Schools as Catalysts for Inclusive Economic Growth

2024· article· en· W7083184721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmployabilityCurriculumDigital literacyLiteracyStakeholderPublic policyPovertyFraming (construction)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital literacy has become a key foundation for educational innovation and economic participation in the 21st century. As global economies transition toward digitalization, integrating digital competencies into senior high school curricula is increasingly viewed as essential for supporting Sustainable Development Goal 8 (SDG 8), which emphasizes decent work and inclusive economic growth. This study investigates the role of public policy in shaping digital literacy education in senior high schools through a comparative case study of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Canada. Employing qualitative policy analysis, the research explores how each country’s policy framework conceptualizes, implements, and evaluates digital literacy initiatives. The analysis focuses on curriculum integration, resource allocation, and stakeholder involvement, while also examining how these programs contribute to employability and economic resilience. The findings reveal notable differences in policy design and institutional commitment, with Canada demonstrating a more systematic integration of digital literacy, the Philippines emphasizing access and equity, and Indonesia facing challenges related to resource disparities and curriculum consistency. These variations illustrate how national contexts influence the inclusiveness and effectiveness of digital literacy policies. The study concludes with recommendations for policymakers to design context-sensitive, equitable, and future-oriented digital literacy strategies that align with labor market demands and promote sustainable economic growth.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Educational Evaluation and Policy AnalysisSame topicEdible Oils Quality and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207