Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the internet as a political tool in order to achieve political goals. In Thailand, for example, the internet has significant roles in the contemporary Thai political context. It demonstrates that the internet is a tool that can be used for political mobilizing, promoting and protecting the mainstream ideology of the state. This paper also argues that it has many possible uses for censorship and surveillance by the government. In conclusion, the internet can be considered political. Keywords: Internet; Thai Political Conflicts; Censorship and SurveillanceResume: Cet article etudie l'Internet comme un outil pour atteindre des objectifs politiques. En Thailande, par exemple, l'Internet joue un role important dans le contexte politique thailandais contemporaine. Il demontre que l'Internet est un outil qui peut etre utilise pour mobiliser la volonte politique, la promotion et la protection de l'ideologie de courant dominant de l'Etat. Ce document affirme qu'il existe de nombreuses utilisations possibles de la censure et de la surveillance par le gouvernement. En conclusion, l'Internet peut etre considere comme politique.Mots-cles: Internet; conflits politiques thailandais; censure et surveillance
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".