MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1826112873 · doi:10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0036

The Next Broadband Challenge: Wireless

2011· article· en· W1826112873 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueJournal of Information Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaBell Canada EnterprisesCisco Systems
KeywordsBroadbandWireless broadbandTelecommunicationsMobile broadbandWirelessBroadband networksBusinessFiberOptical fiberComputer scienceWireless network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Is fiber optics to virtually all homes a sensible policy goal? Perhaps not. At least, so argue Professors Middleton and Given, who suggest that, although wireless broadband may not be as fast as fiber, its adoption will be more rapid because it offers other attractive characteristics. Mobile broadband may have a disruptive effect on the overall broadband market, making fiber to the home less attractive. If this is so, should universal service obligations be extended to mobile broadband? And should governments rethink their plans for a ubiquitous fiber optic infrastructure? Middleton and Given argue that they should.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.222 · 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