MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975129355 · doi:10.1177/00027640121958023

Netting Scholars

2001· article· en· W1975129355 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetInterpersonal communicationSociologyFace (sociological concept)Internet privacyInterpersonal tiesInstant messagingStrong tiesMedia studiesPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial scienceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Has the Internet affected the ways in which people communicate by lessening the effects of distance? To examine this question, the authors study scholarly and interpersonal relationships—in person and by e-mail—in two scholarly networks, one in a large university and one dispersed across North America. These scholarly networks are harbingers of the turn toward network and virtual organizations. Although the Internet helps scholars to maintain ties over great distances, physical proximity still matters. Those scholars who see each other often or work near each other e-mail each other more often. Frequent contact on the Internet is a complement to frequent face-to-face contact, not a substitute for it. The more scholarly relations network members have, the more frequently they communicate and the more media they use to communicate. Although e-mail helps scholars without strong ties to stay in contact, it is used most by scholars who are collaborators or friends.

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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.356 · 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