| Literature DB >> 26727472 |
Aleksandra do Socorro da Silva1, Silvana Rossy de Brito1, Nandamudi Lankalapalli Vijaykumar2, Cláudio Alex Jorge da Rocha3, Maurílio de Abreu Monteiro4, João Crisóstomo Weyl Albuquerque Costa5, Carlos Renato Lisboa Francês5.
Abstract
The published literature reveals several arguments concerning the strategic importance of information and communication technology (ICT) interventions for developing countries where the digital divide is a challenge. Large-scale ICT interventions can be an option for countries whose regions, both urban and rural, present a high number of digitally excluded people. Our goal was to monitor and identify problems in interventions aimed at certification for a large number of participants in different geographical regions. Our case study is the training at the Telecentros.BR, a program created in Brazil to install telecenters and certify individuals to use ICT resources. We propose an approach that applies social network analysis and mining techniques to data collected from Telecentros.BR dataset and from the socioeconomics and telecommunications infrastructure indicators of the participants' municipalities. We found that (i) the analysis of interactions in different time periods reflects the objectives of each phase of training, highlighting the increased density in the phase in which participants develop and disseminate their projects; (ii) analysis according to the roles of participants (i.e., tutors or community members) reveals that the interactions were influenced by the center (or region) to which the participant belongs (that is, a community contained mainly members of the same region and always with the presence of tutors, contradicting expectations of the training project, which aimed for intense collaboration of the participants, regardless of the geographic region); (iii) the social network of participants influences the success of the training: that is, given evidence that the degree of the community member is in the highest range, the probability of this individual concluding the training is 0.689; (iv) the North region presented the lowest probability of participant certification, whereas the Northeast, which served municipalities with similar characteristics, presented high probability of certification, associated with the highest degree in social networking platform.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26727472 PMCID: PMC4699760 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146220
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Categories of Attributes of the Telecentros.BR Dataset.
| Categories of attributes | Description |
|---|---|
| Participant’s function | Represented by the attribute |
| Regional training center | Represented by the attribute |
| Locale | Represented by the attribute |
| Certification | Represented by the attribute |
Indicators for Brazilian Municipalities.
| Indicator | Description | Category | Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHDI income | Represented by the attribute | Very low | 0.000 ≤ MHDI income ≤ 0.499 |
| Low | 0.500 ≤ MHDI income ≤ 0.599 | ||
| Medium | 0.600 ≤ MHDI income ≤ 0.699 | ||
| High | 0.700 ≤ MHDI income ≤ 0.799 | ||
| Very high | 0.800 ≤ MHDI income ≤ 1.000 | ||
| MHDI education | Represented by the attribute | Very low | 0.000 ≤ MHDI education ≤ 0.499 |
| Low | 0.500 ≤ MHDI education ≤ 0.599 | ||
| Medium | 0.600 ≤ MHDI education ≤ 0.699 | ||
| High | 0.700 ≤ MHDI education ≤ 0.799 | ||
| Very high | 0.800 ≤ MHDI education ≤ 1.000 | ||
| Popular Internet infrastructure | Represented by the attribute | Yes | "Yes", if the municipality is attended |
| No | "No", if the municipality is not attended. | ||
| Households with a computer with Internet access | Represented by the attribute | Very low | 0.00 ≤ |
| Low | 7.00 ≤ | ||
| Medium | 12.96 ≤ | ||
| High | 31.58 ≤ |
Fig 1SNA-based Approach for Monitoring ICT Intervention.
Indices of the Telecentros.BR Network.
| #1 | #2 | #3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nodes | 2,303 | 2,303 | 2,303 |
| Links | 19,025 | 37,681 | 48,125 |
| Density | 0.0036 | 0.0071 | 0.0091 |
| Degree centrality (average) | 16.5219 | 32.7234 | 41.7933 |
* Value not standardized
Indices of Networks of Tutors and Community Members.
| Tutors | Community members | Tutors and community members | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #1 | #2 | #3 | #1 | #2 | #3 | |
| Nodes | 210 | 210 | 210 | 2,085 | 2,085 | 2,085 | 2,303 | 2,303 | 2,303 |
| Links | 2,616 | 1,077 | 2,093 | 3,917 | 6,020 | 8,504 | 19,025 | 37,681 | 48,125 |
| Density (no loops) | 0.0596 | 0.0245 | 0.0477 | 0.0009 | 0.0014 | 0.002 | 0.0036 | 0.0071 | 0.0091 |
| Degree average | 24.9 | 10.3 | 19.9 | 3.8 | 5.8 | 8.2 | 16.5 | 32.7 | 41.8 |
| Degree (highest) | 609 | 118 | 447 | 275 | 394 | 419 | 1275 | 1963 | 2735 |
| Closeness centrality (average) | 0.1713 | 0.0661 | 0.0923 | 0.0109 | 0.0257 | 0.0496 | 0.0416 | 0.0787 | 0.1736 |
| WS clustering coefficient | 0.4724 | 0.3571 | 0.4724 | 0.0877 | 0.087 | 0.0599 | 0.3192 | 0.2618 | 0.2719 |
* Value not standardized
Fig 2Network of Relationships Among Tutors.
Fig 3Network of Relationships Among Community Members.
Cross-tabulation (%) between the clusters (Louvain method and pre-assigned by center).
| Cluster ID (pre-assigned by center) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster ID (Louvain method) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 96.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5743 |
| 2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 93.1 | 1.0 | 0.7453 |
| 3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 5.8 | 72.5 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 0.5 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 0.2335 |
| 4 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 2.9 | 94.2 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.5900 |
| 5 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 98.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3063 |
| 6 | 0.0 | 68.1 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 23.6 | 0.0 | 0.5146 |
| 7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.3 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5898 |
| 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 91.3 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.6817 |
| 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 84.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 0.5286 |
| 10 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 10.7 | 1.4 | 83.6 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.6996 |
| 11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 91.2 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.6395 |
| 12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 97.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3787 |
| 13 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 5.4 | 78.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.5 | 0.0 | 0.6691 |
| 14 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 93.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.6755 |
| 15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 93.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.4837 |
| 16 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 97.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7714 |
| 17 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8636 |
| 18 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 94.1 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6902 |
| 19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.9 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7323 |
| 20 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 96.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7076 |
| 21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 95.2 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6321 |
| 22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 86.4 | 5.1 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4213 |
| 23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 93.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6683 |
| 24 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 98.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6372 |
| 25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.6 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4511 |
| 26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 88.6 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.7160 |
| 27 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8524 |
| 28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8441 |
| 29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | - |
| 30 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | - |
* (1) Coordination; (2) Centre-west; (3) North; (4) Northeast; (5) South; (6) Southeast; (7) São Paulo; (8) Septentrional Northeast; (9) Not identified.
Fig 4Network of Cluster ID-3 (Louvain method).
Fig 5Network of Cluster ID-3 (Louvain method) After the Shrinking Operation.
Ranges of Values of Degree Centrality and Degree Prestige.
| Range of | Range of | Community members |
|---|---|---|
| [0.0002 to 0.0015) | [0.0000 to 0.0022) | 25% |
| [0.0015 to 0.0063) | [0.0022 to 0.0091) | 25% |
| [0.0063 to 0.0167) | [0.0091 to 0.0243) | 25% |
| [0.0167 to 0.1681] | [0.0243 to 0.2094] | 25% |
Ranges of Values of Degree Centrality and Degree Prestige (North).
| Ranges of | Range of | Community members (North) |
|---|---|---|
| [0.0002 to 0.0017) | [0.0000 to 0.0026) | 25% |
| [0.0017 to 0.0059) | [0.0026 to 0.0091) | 25% |
| [0.0059 to 0.0117) | [0.0091 to 0.0182) | 25% |
| [0.0117 to 0.1027] | [0.0182 to 0.1134] | 25% |
Fig 6Structure of the Bayesian Network.
Fig 7Percentage of Households with Computer with Internet Access in Brazilian Municipalities.