Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forming peer alliances to share and build knowledge is an important aspect of community arts practice, and these co-creation processes are increasingly being mediated by the Internet. This paper offers guidance for practitioners who are interested in better utilising the Internet The decision not to capitalise the word ‘internet’ in this paper is based on the consideration that digital networks that use the Internet protocol suite, TCP/IP, have become ubiquitous means of sending and receiving communications. to connect, share, and make new knowledge. It argues that new approaches are required to foster the organising activities that underpin online co-creation, building from the premise that people have become increasingly networked as individuals rather than in groups (Rainie & Wellman 2012: 6), and that these new ways of connecting enable new modes of peer-to-peer production and exchange. This position advocates that practitioners move beyond situating the Internet as a platform for dissemination and a tool for co-creating media, to embrace its knowledge collaboration potential. Drawing on a design experiment I developed to promote online knowledge co-creation, this paper suggests three development phases – developing connections , developing ideas , and developing agility – to ground six methods. They are: switching and routing , engaging in small trades of ideas with networked individuals; organising , co-ordinating networked individuals and their data; beta-release , offering ‘beta’ artifacts as knowledge trades; beta-testing , trialing and modifying other peoples ‘beta’ ideas; adapting , responding to technological disruption; and, reconfiguring , embracing opportunities offered by technological disruption. These approaches position knowledge co-creation as another capability of the community artist, along with co-creating art and media.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".