Making Sense of Broadband in Rural Alberta, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article stems from a collaborative research initiative that examined the social adoption of the SuperNet, an Alberta government infrastructure project designed to provide high-speed, broadband access to public facilities, to businesses and residences in Alberta communities. The aim is to explore how rural community members made sense of the SuperNet as a communication technology in the context of their practices and perceived needs and against the background of their existing experience of Internet use. The theoretical underpinnings of the approach taken in the research derive from social constructivism and critical theory of technology. Members of rural communities in their capacity as current and/or potential users of the SuperNet were construed as relevant actors in the social shaping of the network. In the process of the research it became clear that these activities themselves constituted an important stream in the meaning-making and hence social shaping of the SuperNet. The article addresses the question of what economic, political and cultural influences of a national (and provincial) character may be responsible for the observed developments. It also discusses the specifics of rural appropriation of broadband in Alberta and the conditions and outcomes of the creativity of rural users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it