MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583951495 · doi:10.15353/joci.v10i2.2658

Building Broadband Infrastructure from the Grassroots: the Case of Home LANs in Belarus

2013· article· en· W1583951495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aljona Zorina, William H. Dutton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsThe InternetBusinessInternet accessDigital divideBroadbandVariety (cybernetics)TelecommunicationsResource (disambiguation)EngineeringComputer sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the development of residential Internet infrastructure by communities of citizens in Minsk, Belarus, in Eastern Europe. Sharing resources and technologies these communities created infrastructures from the grassroots that became an alternative to an undeveloped and hardly affordable provision of Internet-access provided by Internet companies. This grassroots network became the main source of residential broadband Internet access. During the 16 years of their development (1994-2010), home LANs grew to connect a million users, created a number of important Ethernet innovations and established mutually profitable cooperative relationships with private providers and municipal organizations. This paper focuses on the innovative aspects of home LANs and describes this solution to the development of the local grassroots Internet infrastructure. The case study provides an example of user-driven innovations for the ‘First Mile’ that can address aspects of the digital divide and social exclusion, despite a variety of resource-based limitations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207