Trouble at Kookaburra Hollow: how media mediate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through 2005 a dispute played itself out at the Kookaburra Hollow housing estate. The dispute initially concerned allegations of poor build quality in some houses, the absence of broadband to the estate, and the absence of certain public amenities. However, it escalated to involve disagreement among residents about the strategies and tactics employed in the disputes. These strategies and tactics involved the use of four media a Community Intranet, hand-made signs, public and private meetings, and a television broadcast. We describe the use made of these media as the dispute unfolded, and argue that each mediated the action in different ways. In our tentative analysis, the key factors that shape these sociotechnologies as actors are that they: act in different domains; act in different registers; and have different points of initiation and patterns of circulation. In comparing and contrasting the four media in these terms, we hope to understand more about this particular dispute, more about community networks, and more about media as actors.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".