Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Bridging the digital divide: technology, community, and public policy

·2003·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

Special Recognition. List of Figures. List of Tables. Acknowledgments. Foreword. Preface. 1. Redefining the Digital Divide. 2. The Dimensions of the Digital Divide. 3. The Role of CTCs within the Community Technology Movement: Marla K. Nelson, Rutgers University. 4. Support for Bridging the Gap. 5. Community Technology and Youth. 6. Training Disadvantaged Workers for IT Jobs. 7. The Organizational Divide: Josh Kirschenbaum and Radhika Kunamneni, PolicyLink. 8. Building the Bridge: Learning from Seattle. 9. Toward a New Agenda. Bibliography. Appendix 1: Research Strategy and Methodology. Appendix 2: Community Technology Survey. Appendix 3: Analysis of Survey Results. Appendix 4: World Wide Web References. Bibliography. Index.

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 · 10.5860/choice.40-6100

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
2003-06-01
Volume
40
Issue
10
Pages
40-6100-40-6100
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W561407791
Cited by
347
References
0
Type
book review
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bridging the digital divide: technology, community, and public policy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.40-6100
The paper
Bridging the digital divide: technology, community, and public policy. (2003). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-6100

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.