MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115195924 · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2025.2592771

Who is concerned about digitalization? The role of digital literacy and exposure across 30 countries

2025· article· en· W7115195924 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Communication & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital literacyLiteracyDigital divideTechnological literacyInformation and Communications TechnologyDigital media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid digitalization has unleashed widespread digital concerns, namely concerns about the potential harms associated with digital technology use, such as privacy loss, blurred work-family boundaries, and misinformation. Analyzing nationally representative data from the European Social Survey (2020–2022; N = 49,665), we present the first evidence across 30 countries on the prevalence of and sociodemographic variations in digital concerns, as well as how digital literacy and exposure relate to these concerns. Our findings reveal high levels of digital concerns, averaging 0.65 across countries on a 0–1 scale, ranging from 0.47 in Bulgaria to 0.74 in the Netherlands. Following a concave age pattern, adults aged 25–44 years report greater concerns compared to younger people and older adults. More educated individuals report greater digital concerns than those with less education. Digital concerns, however, vary little across the income spectrum or from big cities to remote villages. Exhibiting a positive digital literacy–concern link, those with greater digital literacy are more concerned about digital technologies’ potential harms. This digital literacy–concern link intensifies with digital exposure, which is measured through both individual-level technology use and country-level internet coverage. Our study highlights digital concerns as an understudied yet prominent feature of everyday life in today’s societies. Global agendas for improving digital literacy and engagement should incorporate efforts to address not just digital technologies’ ramifications but also people’s concerns about them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Communication & SocietySame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207