MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W756199862

Political Communication in the Era of New Technologies

2014· article· en· W756199862 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Howard A. Doughty

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œinnovation journal · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Media and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsSocial mediaThe InternetMedia studiesSign (mathematics)Public relationsPublicitySociologyPolitical scienceLawWorld Wide WebComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Boguslawa Dobek-Ostrowska & Jan Garlicki (eds.) Political Communication in the Era of New Technologies Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, 2013I worked as a volunteer in a political election campaign for the first time in 1965. I had already had some experience using the silkscreen method to produce road signs in the Traffic Engineering Department in my local municipality where I painted fire hydrants on pleasant days but worked in the sign shop when the weather was especially inclement. In those days, aspirant elected officials were pretty much restricted to spreading their message by: placing colourful signs at traffic intersections, in store windows and on the lawns of willing supporters; appearing in person at staged community events and debates with other candidates; distributing brochures and knocking on people's doors hoping to encourage support in brief conversations; and currying favour with the local press. All those methods are still employed, but a multi-layered process has been added. We now see politicians engage citizens using the social media. From YouTube videos to Internet postings and from annoying and unsolicited emails to even more annoying and unsolicited robocalls, potential leaders try everything from the dissemination of slogans and unflattering images of their opponents to capture our votes and to win our financial contributions to their campaigns.The methods used by politicians, of course, only amount to a portion of the wider influence of communications technology and the stealthy intrusion of data collection, analysis, storage and retrieval into our public lives. The thoughts and habits of voters are monitored in the cloud and political activities are crowdfunded. Barack Obama managed to finance two presidential campaigns by raising $1.4 billion from small donors using the Internet. Demonstrators from Tunis to Tehran to Tokyo to Toronto have brought tens of thousands to protest political tyranny and economic corruption by posting messages on social media. And, of course, elections themselves are increasingly being conducted electronically as people cast votes online.What this portends is anybody's guess. Some see the current trends as just one more step toward a kind of inverted totalitarianism in which nefarious agencies of the state will be able to collect data-often in freely posted opinions in the social media and blogs-on individual citizens as grounds for literally or figuratively deploying the thought police. Others imagine that it opens up a whole new scenario for direct democracy as electronic plebiscites and recall petitions for errant representatives can be conducted with no more effort than a few strokes on a keyboard. Technology can therefore be seen as an instrument to degrade or to enhance democratic practices.It shouldn't come as a surprise in this most surprising of times that new technologies are profoundly affecting political communication. Politics, after all, is just one element in our complex lives and technology is insinuating itself into all of them.Not only are we relentlessly inundated with a spate of new consumer products which probably shouldn't be mentioned by brand name since they'll likely be obsolete before this is printed or, perhaps more accurately, pixelized, but revolutionary technologies have already gone far beyond what was contemplated a scant decade or two ago when personal computers were introduced and soon afterward were accompanied and complemented by the invention of the world-wide-web. The web, in turn, almost immediately spawned utopian/dystopian applications including online commerce, music and film downloading and an arresting array of surveillance options adequate to the (un)expressed needs and desires of espionage agents, secret police forces, tax collectors, insurance companies and dystopian fantasists of all kinds.We are now promised that soon we will have almost all the books in the world uploaded to virtual libraries where, we should understand, there will also be a tremendous temptation for the more pathological authorities to push the delete key and set civilization back more dramatically than the consumption by fire of all the scrolls in Alexandria. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,305
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,278

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,358
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œinnovation journalMême sujetSocial Media and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207