AI, Big Data, and surveillance zines as forms of community healthcare
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
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the zines, handbooks, and pamphlets on AI, Big Data, and surveillance published in the United States between 2009 and 2020 that aim to democratize knowledge on technologies. The main texts chosen for this article are A People's Guide To AI: A beginner's guide to understanding AI (2018), Digital Defense Playbook/Cuaderno De Juegos De Defensa Digital (2018), Oh! The Places Your Data Will Go (2019), The People's Field Guide to Spotting Surveillance Infrastructure (2019) and the Coveillance Toolkits (2021), the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition's zines (2020); and the five zines produced by the Detroit Digital Justice Coalition since 2009. These publications are part of a longer history of feminist activists printing zines, booklets, and pamphlets to make scientific knowledge more accessible. In particular, these publications build on the traditional use of zines and handbooks by feminist and health advocacy organizations such as the Boston Women's Health Collective and ACT UP in the United States. In addition to following in their suit of explaining technical information by using clear language and providing definitions and resources, these publications on AI, Big Data, and Surveillance are themselves a form of health literacy.KEYWORDS: AIBig Datazinesfeminismsurveillance AcknowledgementsThank you to our peer reviewers for your feedback and suggestions.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. While zines created after widespread internet adoption still work to provide access to information, this is not their only benefit. Zines that spread via the internet also allow for activists and organizers to learn about topics and clarify how to talk about them with community members and offer avenues for new metaphors and framings of the topics at hand to resonate with community members. Thank you to our reviewers for pointing out this distinction.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Insight Grant 253028].Notes on contributorsAlex KetchumAlex Ketchum has been the Faculty Lecturer of the Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies of McGill University since 2018. She is the Director of the Just Feminist Tech and Scholarship Lab and the organizer of the SSHRC (Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada) funded, Disrupting Disruptions: the Feminist and Accessible Publishing and Communications Technologies Speaker and Workshop Series. This research is supported by her multi-year SSHRC Insight Grant.Nina MorenaNina Morena is a PhD Candidate in Communication Studies at McGill University. Her research investigates the social media practices of young people with metastatic breast cancer. She holds an MA in Media Studies from Concordia University and a BA in English Literature from McGill University.
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 | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| 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 | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 découle