MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537725515 · doi:10.1080/13691180500259210

The people's network

2005· article· en· W1537725515 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Communication & Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetGateway (web page)Context (archaeology)Government (linguistics)IntermediaryPublic relationsSociologyIntermediationPolitical sciencePosition (finance)Internet accessPublic administrationWorld Wide WebBusinessComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores perceptions of Internet access in UK public libraries within government policy, by librarians, and by library users, in the broader context of government/citizen intermediation. Predominantly theoretical, it focuses upon how discourses of self-education and empowerment have come to position Internet access within this domain in different ways. Public libraries are significant here because: (1) within policy circles, public libraries are positioned as key informational intermediaries between government and citizen; (2) they offer an opportunity to explore the role and experience of ‘traditional’ institutions incorporating Internet access (as opposed to ‘new’ institutions such as the cyber-café and e-gateway); and (3) perceptions of Internet access within public libraries have been under-explored within theoretically driven sociology. An illustrative case involving documentary analysis and interviews with librarians and library users is drawn on to question the technicist image of future domestic governance and citizenship in policy on access and intermediation. The article highlights emerging conjunctions and disjunctions between (1) government policy; (2) library-institutional discourses, interests and strategies; and (3) the everyday practices of citizens, in the context of such access. Utilizing theoretical insights from STS and cultural theory, the article stresses that ‘tensions’ between the different interested constituencies involved (government; libraries; library users) problematize any simple notions of a ‘unitary Internet’ and raise some theoretical and empirical questions regarding the current conceptualization of intermediation within policy on public Internet access.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · 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