Digital Habitats – stewarding technology for communities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000001617 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000001601 Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities by Wenger, White and Smith, has been out for two years and it has had numerous positive reviews. The book is well written, indeed, and it is extremely clear and enjoyable to read. The book focuses on the area where the interplay between technology and communities intersects, which the authors identify as “digital habitats”. In practical terms, a digital habitat is “the portion of a community that is enabled by a configuration of technologies” (p38). A digital habitat, like its biological counterpart, is a dynamic entity, which needs to adapt to environmental changes. It is thus important to determine its technological landscape and the space for maneuvering in it. The authors introduce the concept of “technology stewardship” to refer to the emerging practice of helping a community “choose, configure, and use technologies to best suit its needs” (p 24). These activities are carried out by certain members of the community, the “technology stewards”, who take a leadership role.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it