Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many assume that the digital divide – the large numbers of people who are not connected to the Internet – is small, shrinking, and rapidly becoming irrelevant. It is not. The term “digital divide” refers to inequalities in Internet access and use, ranging from the global level, to nation states, to communities, and to individuals. The divide is here for some time to come. It is large, multifaceted, and, in some ways, it is not shrinking. Moreover, the divide is socially patterned, so that there are systematic and meaningful variations in the kinds of people who are on and off the Internet. These patterns vary between nations and over time, so last year’s divide often does not necessarily resemble this year’s, and Country A’s divide does not necessarily resemble Country B’s. Indeed, it is more accurate to use the plural – digital divides – because the nature of the digital divide varies within and between countries, both developed and developing. There is no one digital divide; there are many divides. To be sure, the Internet has grown rapidly and hugely in the last decade. Educated estimates show that use of the Internet has diffused to the point that the number of Internet users around the globe has surged from 900,000 in 1993, 25 million in 1995, 83 million in 1999, 513 million in 2001, to more than 600 million by the end of 2002. More recently, other new media, such as Web-enabled mobile phones, have fostered computermediated technology. Yet, widespread diffusion does not equal ubiquity, even within developed countries. The first digital divide appeared at the very start of the Internet. Early users were disproportionately affluent, male, white, better educated, and from developed countries, especially the United States. Rather than shrinking with expanding Internet use, the global digital divide between developed countries and developing nations continues to be huge. Denizens of economically developed countries sometimes forget what a small percentage of the world’s population is online. After all, the majority of their country-mates are on the Internet, as are the economically advanced segments of developing countries. Yet, only 10 percent of the world’s population was on the Internet in 2002, and 88 percent of these Internet users resided in industrialized countries. Within countries, the uneven diffusion of the Internet appears along familiar lines of social inequality such as socioeconomic status, gender, age, geographic location, and ethnicity. Moreover, having access to computers and the Internet and possessing the ability to use them effectively are two different issues. However, marketers, media, and governments often report only the number of people who have access to the Internet. The question is not whether people have ever glanced at a monitor or put their hands on a keyboard, but the extent to which they regularly use a computer and the Internet for meaningful purposes. At present, the digital divide has multiple aspects. As noted above, it is really digital divides. First, the digital divide is not a binary yes/no question of whether the basic physical access to the Internet is available. Access does not equal use. Rather, the digital divide is a continuum ranging from physical access, financial access, cognitive access, and content access to political access. Second, the term “digital divide” has both technological and social resonances. There are at least five
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 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».