Is there any benefit to understanding gamma, related to the modern concept of scanning and then printing on an inkjet?
Yes.
We always say that developing controls contrast, but that's almost a by product of what actually is happening. Development really controls density - if you look at a film's characteristic curve, you'll see that density increases with exposure, yes; but look at the development time curves and you'll see that as development extends, so does the absolute value of the maximum. You'll also notice that with modern films, the curves are not extended beyond a certain density, even though the curves don't seem to be reaching a limit. With the older films, if you increased exposure enough, density would actually decrease - see Ansel Adams' Black Sun. With modern films, that doesn't seem to be the case. So why stop at a low value? Our old friend, the printing paper. It can't handle the range implied by greater density, so the curves stop at the point at which they are no longer useful to darkroom printers.
What about scanning then? Note that scanners have rated maximum DMax values - densities higher than which you cannot go if you want anything extracted. It might be that scanners have optimistic quoted DMax values (DMax - shorthand for maximum density), but that doesn't really matter. What does is that if the DMax goes too high, your scans quality decreases. You are better to have a lower contrast negative if you're planning to scan than if you're planning to make a darkroom print.
In case you don't realise, density is expressed in a logarithmic scale, like the DIN speed index for films. Every 0.3 added to the density means that the value has doubled.
Whether you see this as a need to understand gamma or not, I don't know. What matters isn't gamma per se but the inability of scanners and darkroom papers to handle negatives where the maximum density is beyond what they can handle. And maximum density depends on both exposure and development, although except in the case of grossly overexposed negatives, development will contribute more (as you should have seen with how density for the same exposure increases with development).
Edit to add. Johann Bengel (1672-1752) wrote an extensive commentary on the Bible titled Gnomen of the New Testament. A gnomen is the pointer on a sundial, indicating where to look (for the time in this case). Bengel saw his commentary as a pointer to the meaning of the text. I see my book as a pointer to where to look and what to look for. Hence the suggestions for further reading, and a lack of a claim to being comprehensive. Qualities that you may be amused to hear were the reason for one publisher's rejection of the manuscript, and why I never bothered again.
