MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1645484860 · doi:10.15353/joci.v1i2.2039

Sustainable Community Technology: The symbiosis between community technology and community research

2005· article· en· W1645484860 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseCommunity buildingSociologyInformation and Communications TechnologySustainabilityKnowledge managementDiversity (politics)Public relationsCommunity developmentEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The social sustainability of any community technology activity is dependent on whether or not it forms an integral part of, and contributes to, the shared experiences that constitute community life. Drawing from this premise the paper presents a human-centred exploration of community informatics (CI) by proposing that, as a field of study and practice, a central goal should be to develop shared understandings of ways in which ICT contribute to building and sustaining active and healthy communities. The diversity of community ICT practices have the potential to contribute to a collective knowledgebase that is not only of import as a resource for academic investigation but also in terms of its broader social significance to community life. With this in mind, the authors analyse and critically evaluate the significance of the emerging symbiosis between community technology and community research. Applying a human-centred perspective of CI to a community technology research and development project the paper concludes with a story about Black Elk, a Lakota shaman, as a metaphor for the relationship between community technology and community research.

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.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0260.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0010.033
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.242 · 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