Testing a Moderator-Type Research Model on the Use of High Speed Internet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY The vast technological possibilities of the Internet are at the basis of the fast progress of the information society (Al-Omoush & Shaqrah, 2010). It has become one of the most important means of new forms of cooperation and competition in the various subsystems of society (Al-Omoush & Shaqrah, 2010). Anderson (2008) argues that Internet has a great influence on people's connections to friends, families, and their communities, on the social system of formal and informal support, and on the working of groups and teams. It is also the valuable instrument of scientific, social, marketing researches, and business development (Al-Omoush & Shaqrah, 2010). In addition, the Internet, as an information and entertainment technology, affects education, government, publishing, retail industry, banking, broadcast services, health care delivery, and so on (Al-Omoush & Shaqrah, 2010). So, the scope of the Internet is now worldwide and in all sectors of the society, and then forces to deliver this essential resource to people in households. In order to provide the reader with a good overall view of the actual Internet population, we have regrouped in Table 1 the different generations (as conventionalized by Strauss and Howe's book: Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069) and the percentages of adult both total and online. As shown in Table 1, Contrary to the image of Generation Y as the 'Net Generation,' Internet users in their twenties do not dominate every aspect of online life. Generation X is the most likely group to bank, shop, and look for health information online. Boomers are just as likely as Generation Y to make travel reservations online. And even Silent Generation Internet users are competitive when it comes to e-mail (although teens might point out that this is proof that e-mail is for old people). The Web continues to be populated largely by younger generations, as more than half of the adult Internet population is between 18 and 44 years old. But larger percentages of older generations are online now than in the past and they are doing more activities online, according to the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project surveys taken from 2006-2008. (Jones & Fox, 2009, p. 1) As the Internet population is continually growing since its infancy, the need for always faster and performing telecommunications networks allowing people to communicate and to perform their daily activities at a satisfying pace has become an everyday concern for all the countries, hence the apparition of high speed Internet in the middle of the 1990s. For example, for more than a decade, the Government of Canada has been developing strategies to enable Canadians to become participants in the information society (Government of Canada, 1999; Government Online Advisory Panel, 2003; quoted in Middleton & Ellison, 2006, p. 1). As part of this strategy, it was recommended that broadband Internet access be made available to all Canadian households (National Broadband Task Force, 2001; quoted in Middleton & Ellison, 2006, pp. 1-2). There are still many not served and underserved areas in the (CRACIN, 2005), and the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel has urged the federal government to reaffirm its commitment to maintaining Canada's global broadband leadership and to ensuring that broadband access is available everywhere in the country (Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, 2006, p. 8-5; quoted in Middleton & Ellison, 2006, p. 2). Similarly, as a public issue, broadband has taken on a higher profile in recent months because of President Obama's decision to include funding for broadband in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); also ARRA included $7.2 billion for broadband with the goal of accelerating the deployment of broadband Internet access in the United States (Horrigan, 2009). These are just two examples here of how much all of the countries are putting a strong emphasis on strategies capable of promoting the acceleration of the deployment of high speed Internet everywhere in the world. …
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".