Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 644

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Internet and Knowledge Gaps: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation

Bonfadelli, Heinz·2002·European Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1177/0267323102017001607
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although the knowledge gap hypothesis is often mentioned in connection with the social consequences of the Information Society, there is little discussion of its theoretical background or specific empirical evidence. Therefore, this article explores the theoretical potential of the knowledge gap perspective for Internet research and presents data based on two recent Internet surveys, which demonstrate a double digital divide. Access to the Internet in Switzerland is still dominated by well-educated, affluent, young males and between 1997 and 2000 the gap between those who do and those who do not have access widened not narrowed. Furthermore, there are gaps in the use of the Internet too. More educated people use the Internet more actively and their use is more information oriented, whereas the less educated seem to be interested particularly in the entertainment functions of the Internet.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0267323102017001607

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bonfadelli, H.
Venue
European Journal of Communication
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-03
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
65-84
ISSN
  • 0267-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3705
DOI
10.1177/0267323102017001607
OpenAlex
W2146702897
Cited by
644
References
1
FWCI
49.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.