MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505025516 · doi:10.15353/joci.v4i1.2967

Anytime? Anywhere?: Reframing Debates Around Community and Municipal Wireless Networking

2008· article· en· W1505025516 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingAffordanceWireless networkPhraseWirelessSociologyTelecommunicationsPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceSocial psychologyHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past three years, cities across the United States have announced ambitious plans to build community and municipal wireless networks. The phrase ‘anytime, anywhere’ has had a powerful impact in shaping the way in which debates about these networks have been framed. However, ‘anytime, anywhere’, which alludes to convenience, freedom and ubiquity, is of little use in describing the realities of municipal wireless networks, and, more importantly, it ignores the particular local characteristics of communities and the specific practices of users. This paper examines the media representations and technological affordances of wireless networks as well as incorporating the practices of those that build and use them in an attempt to reframe these debates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it