Guest Editorial: Information Ethics and Global Citizenship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In spring of 20i4, scholars from around world gathered at University of Alberta, Canada, to dig deeply into intersection of theories and practices of global citizenship and information ethics. These are two concepts that are not often brought together in such an intentional manner. This journal issue offers seven of papers presented, plus responses to three of these papers, surfacing ideas on edges of academic disciplines and professional practices.The International Center for Information Ethics frames topic, in part, as being about the development of moral values in information field; creation of new power structures in information field; information myths; hidden contradictions and intentionalities in information theories and practices; and development of ethical conflicts within field.i By bringing this together with concerns of global citizenship research, an emerging field of study about multiscalar experiences of globalization and citizenship with a focus on workings of global systems, issues, and actions by governments, social movements, and corporations, among other actors, we began to see intersections and patterns between acts and scales of citizenship, and way information is created, exchanged, surveilled, and controlled. Our chosen act of locating information ethics within global citizenship concerns highlights our commitment to a global social justice approach to research and scholarship across these disciplinary boundaries.We began our early conversations with questions about scholars at risk, because of their social justice work and how role of public intellectual has shifted prompted by intense globalization, dominance of corporatization, and marketization of academic labor. These conversations were also in context of recent challenges to privacy and government surveillance as citizens around world struggle to understand implications of high profile cases of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, charges against Chelsea Manning for her whistleblowing acts, and Edward Snowden's bold release of data about USA National Security Agency's surveillance practices. With information becoming more and more privatized and technology more sophisticated, difficult ethical issues become every day concern of scholars and educators everywhere. These issues move across space, actors, and institutions creating need for understanding that is multiscalar (local, national, global), engaging multiple epistemic and ontological as well as geographic locations in world, and able to identify how discourses and practices of oppression move around world through institutional/ institutionalizing structures. We look for an intercultural and anti-colonial disruption of binary local/global information studies that surfaces global citizen knowledges and emancipatory possibility of information ethics as a foundation. The articles and responses to them in this journal issue contribute to such understanding.In opening piece, Exploring Information Ethics: A Metadata Analytics Approach, Ali Shiri (University of Alberta) helps to frame topics found within information ethics by creating a knowledge mapping of scholarly activities. This map provides a tool to encourage collaborative research and scholarship. Through building understanding and common language, diverse contributions to information ethics scholarship can become accessible in many related disciplines. To follow, John Buschman (Seton Hall University) describes information ethics as being located, first and foremost, in a public and political setting. In his work, Citizenship and Agency Under Neoliberal Global Consumerism: A Search for Informed Democratic Practices, he explores vital role of information in contributing to democratic, global citizenship. He reminds us of ethical responsibility of practicing information professionals to address democratic needs of public sphere, particularly responsibility to address urgent social, political, and environmental issues that face us on this planet. …
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,020 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,010 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».