MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1748879262 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2007v32n2a1849

Creating Model Citizens for the Information Age: Canadian Internet Policy as Civilizing Discourse

2007· article· en· W1748879262 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Naomi Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)GlobalizationPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)NegotiationPledgeDemocracyThe InternetPublic relationsInformation AgeSociologyPublic administrationPoliticsPolitical economyLawWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the late 1990s, the Government of Canada launched a string of initiatives to usher its citizens into the “information age.” Recently, the federal government has announced “mission accomplished” in its pledge to become a “model user” of information technology, recognized around the world as the country most connected to its citizens. This paper interrogates the term “model user” as a marker of the changes occurring to techniques of government in our expanding information society. It proposes that the “model user” represents ways to negotiate the changing relationship between nation, state, and citizen associated with economic restructuring and signals a new civilizing discourse for citizen conduct amid the dynamic flows of information and ideas. Further, the “model user” suggests an emphasis on innovation that is implicated within larger discourses of economic globalization and the premium placed on adaptability and creativity. Finally, this paper makes vivid the connections between the “model user” and emerging discourses of Canada as a “model democracy” and Canadians as “model citizens” within the global context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207