MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134198792 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18912591

E-learning Platforms and Accessibility in Gender Equality Initiatives: A Case Study from Senegalese Villages in Kenya

2010· article· en· W7134198792 on OpenAlexaff
Kisangah Kioni

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerifiable secret sharingMetric (unit)Process (computing)Bounded functionDomain (mathematical analysis)Work (physics)Gender equality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses a current research gap in Computer Science concerning E-learning Platforms for Gender Equality in Remote Senegalese Villages: Performance and Accessibility Analysis in Kenya. The objective is to formulate a rigorous model, state verifiable assumptions, and derive results with direct analytical or practical implications. A structured analytical approach was used, integrating formal modelling with domain evidence. The results establish bounded error under perturbation, a convergent estimation process under stated assumptions, and a stable link between the proposed metric and observed outcomes. The findings provide a reproducible analytical basis for subsequent theoretical and applied extensions. Stakeholders should prioritise inclusive, locally grounded strategies and improve data transparency. E-learning Platforms for Gender Equality in Remote Senegalese Villages: Performance and Accessibility Analysis, Kenya, Africa, Computer Science, conference paper This work contributes a formal specification, transparent assumptions, and mathematically interpretable claims. 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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