MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157071032

Is it Good to Share? A Case Study of FON and Meraki Approaches to Broadband Provision

2008· article· en· W157071032 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine A. Middleton, Amelia Bryne Potter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroadbandComputer scienceScale (ratio)Broadband networksTelecommunicationsFace (sociological concept)Digital divideBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)The InternetWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a detailed assessment of FON and Meraki approaches to extending broadband infrastructures by sharing connections within communities. The paper outlines elements of good broadband infrastructure, and considers the extent to which each approach is able to deliver good service to its users. Both approaches have had some success, but the Meraki approach appears to be more feasible. Neither approach is able to build highly robust broadband infrastructure. It is concluded that community-led initiatives to develop large scale infrastructures, while promising in some respects, face many challenges.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207