MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516139465

In this issue (December 2010)

2010· article· en· W1516139465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Florencia Enghel

Bibliographic record

VenueGlocal times · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedia studiesConversationGlocalizationSociologySocial mediaNew mediaPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawGlobalization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six months have passed since the publication of Issue No. 20 of Glocal Times. In the meantime there has been plenty of activity within the field, including the Voice & Matter conference, held in September of this year by the Orecomm Centre for Communication and Glocal Change. Issue No. 21 of Glocal Times brings us four reports of other fora across the world where communication for development was both practiced and debated in recent months. To begin with, expert practitioners Birgitte Jallov and Sofie Jannusch share rich details about a worldwide two-week debate on community participation for radio sustainability that took place in April 2014 through the online networking tool LinkedIn. Organized by the Catholic Media Council (CAMECO), and facilitated by Jallov and Jannusch, the online debate was a pilot experience for gathering, sharing and discussing experiences on the matter from around the world. The authors reflect on the communicational aspects of the experience, on what worked and what didn’t work according to plan and on the themes that emerged, and advance ways forward for the conversation to continue. Next, scholars Verena Thomas and Clemencia Rodriguez give us a thorough account of the 10 th OURMedia conference, held in July 2014 at the University of Goroka (UOG) in Papua New Guinea. Organized by the Centre for Social and Creative Media, which is a media research center of UOG, the conference was important for rendering visible and analyzing the situation of community and alternative media in the Pacific. The ideas put forward by the participating scholars, activists, and community media practitioners call our attention to the potential of media-bound efforts undertaken on the margins of institutionally-driven development, and to the challenges they face. Then, two articles contributed by Ph.D. candidates introduce us to discussions of (or around) communication for development in recent events in which they participated. Paola Sartoretto , based at Karlstad University in Sweden, tells us about the conference “Media and Governance in Latin America – Exploring the role of communication for development”, organized in May 2014 by the University of Sheffield and the Sheffield Institute for International Development in the UK. Mery Perez , based at the University of Guelph in Canada, refers to the newly-created network “Redecambio”, a network of graduate programs with a focus on communication, development and social change convened in August 2014 in Colombia by the tertiary education institution Uniminuto. Last but not least, two recent graduates from Malmo University’s Master’s program in Communication for Development introduce us to the main features of their respective theses. Sofia Hafdell investigates the potential and limitations of activist use of social media to report on the Gezi Park protests in Turkey in 2013 in the absence of mainstream news coverage. Based on critical discourse analysis of alternative media texts and qualitative semi-structured interviews to activists, Hafdell analyzes the complicated relationship between media and the state and its consequences for open, democratic debate in Turkey. YeeYin Yap enquires into how modern ethnography museums, and certain exhibitions in particular, frame their messages about Self and Others. Based on on-site observation, textual analysis and interviews to museum visitors, Yap discusses the importance of contextualization in order to engage audiences in ways that acknowledge past inequalities, allow bottom-up views of history and bridge differences. We hope that you will find this new issue of Glocal Times both informative and thought-provoking, and we welcome your views on the matters raised here, and your suggestions for future issues.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlocal timesSame topicTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207