MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133185579 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18830050

Digital Literacy Programmes in Nairobi Slums: Adoption Rates and Educational Outcomes Over Three Years

2006· article· en· W7133185579 on OpenAlexaff
Erick Kibet Nyambura, Mwathi Chepchai, Oscar Orindi Cheruiyos, Wycliffe Okoth Ochieng

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipDigital literacyDigital inclusionLiteracyPsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)Digital divideQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital literacy programmes have become increasingly important in addressing educational disparities among youth living in Nairobi slums. There is a growing need for evidence-based evaluations of these programmes to understand their effectiveness and impact over time. The review utilised comprehensive searches across academic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were defined based on study design, participant age range (15-24 years), setting (Nairobi slums), and timeframe (three-year period). Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Analysis revealed that digital literacy programmes in Nairobi slums had an adoption rate of approximately 30% among youth, with significant variations across different socio-economic groups. Educational outcomes showed a moderate improvement in basic computer skills and online safety awareness over three years. The review highlights the importance of tailored interventions for maximising programme uptake and educational benefits within Nairobi slums. Future research should explore long-term impacts and scalability of digital literacy programmes. Policy makers are encouraged to support evidence-based digital literacy initiatives in partnership with community leaders, ensuring inclusivity and addressing socio-economic disparities effectively. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207