Introduction: Community Informatics and Community Development
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Community informatics, comparatively new discipline, is the study of information and communication technology (ICT) in community development work. Michael Gurstein (2000,p. 1) defines community informatics as a technology strategy or discipline which links economic and social development at the community level emerging opportunities in wide variety of information and communication technology applications. At the same time, Loader, Hague, and Eagle (2000) from the United Kingdom were describing community informatics as an approach that enables the connection of cyberspace to community places, field of investigation regarding the ways in which ICT can be geographically embedded and developed by community groups to support new and existing networks. Earlier, Schuler (1996) had described the social movement termed community networking, tracing the history of freenets, computer-supported community work, and community networks tying the community-based social networks of physical relationships to computer-based technology that permitted enhancement of these networks. This issue of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Journal of the Community Development Society furthers the exploration of community informatics and community development by providing number of illustrative and challenging articles about both application and critical thinking. This field is one in which the application of technology has provided leadership to thinking about the ways and means of application and the implications for community and technology theory. Through efforts to promote local initiatives and state and federal programs, the number and scope of applications have proliferated. At the same time, efforts to document these applications have been difficult to mobilize--much less organize--for intensive and critical study. Consequently, we know lot more about how than and with what effects. Even so many applications documented, the analysis of what worked and why is limited. In this issue, very modest attempt to catch has been assembled although it should be noted that our efforts are still more documentary than analytical. Nevertheless, it is extremely important to community development that this documentation is done as the rhetoric surrounding ICT developments has been very direct in its implications for improving community well-being. Since ICT represents what numerous observers and policy makers have called transformational the slowness of our efforts to think critically about what we are doing seems strange. Nevertheless, new journals recently emerging and many new books on multitude of related topics, the analytical field is gaining traction in field where technology and its applications changes very rapidly. ICT APPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Since the emergence of the Information Superhighway programs of the Clinton Administration, the United States has witnessed an explosion of ICT applications in many fields. Not to be out done, the European Union created its own supporting programs as did other English-speaking nations like Australia and Canada. In addition, many states, recognizing some limitations in federal programs, created their own initiatives. As multi-lingual capabilities became available in ICT applications, African and Latin American nations joined the movement. All were justified as helping citizens take advantage of ICT's powerful functions and speeding up the deployment of the technology, which had been left primarily to the private sector. In less advantaged countries, the argument was supplemented by the perception that ICT capacity was necessary to support development and participation in the global economy. Although the specific applications are too numerous to discuss here, the areas in which applications have been made cover the spectrum of community development interests. Central, of course, are applications that emphasize community building. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle