MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560262073 · doi:10.15353/joci.v10i1.2757

How Does Internet Usage Influence On Social Capital, Connectedness, Success And Well-Being Of Grassroots Level Inventors In Sri Lanka?

2013· article· en· W1560262073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chaminda Nalaka Wickramasinghe, Nobaya Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsSocial connectednessSocial capitalThe InternetSri lankaBusinessDeveloping countryEconomic growthDigital divideCapital (architecture)Public relationsMarketingPolitical scienceSociologySocioeconomicsSocial sciencePsychologyEconomicsGeographySocial psychologyPoliticsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet has been recognized as the world largest knowledge depositary. Therefore, there is overwhelming expectation over the Internet to be influenced the social and technological development of marginalized communities of less developed countries. However there were no published studies that investigate the nature of the innovation systems and the impact of internet on the inventors in developing countries. Therefore, the existing knowledge of how the internet usage of influence on social capital, connectedness, success and subjective well-being of inventive community in developing countries is vague. Present study explores the influence of the internet usage on social capital, community connectedness, inventive achievements and subjective well-being of the grassroots level inventive community of Sri Lanka. Findings suggest that internet has been significantly influenced on the social capital, connectedness and subjective well-being of grassroots level inventors in Sri Lanka. However, internet usage is not significantly influence on the objective inventive achievements of the inventors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207