MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1618000773 · doi:10.15353/joci.v2i3.2068

Should communal computing facilities cohabit with public facilities?

2007· article· en· W1618000773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wallace Chigona

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedBusinessComputer scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reasons for establishing communal computing facilities (CCF) in existing public facilities vary from lower setup and operating costs, to easy access for intended users. We explore how CCFs operate in existing public facilities and the effects of these environments on the operations and usage of CCFs. Informed by findings of studies on CCFs in disadvantaged communities, this paper notes a number of merits and demerits of setting CCFs in existing public facilities. We note that hosting institutions may contribute towards achieving CCFs’ critical success factors. On the negative side, hosting institutions may limit the type of users for CCFs.

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)0.010
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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207