MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023155538 · doi:10.1080/00071310120109366

‘Sites’ of resistance: alternative websites and state‐society relations <sup>1</sup>

2002· article· en· W2023155538 on OpenAlexaff
Kin‐Yip Ho, Zaheer Baber, Habibul Haque Khondker

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocioeconomic Development in Asia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsCivil societyThe InternetState (computer science)PopulationPoliticsResistance (ecology)Diversity (politics)MainstreamNegotiationRestructuringCensorshipSociologyPolitical scienceEthnic groupLawPolitical economyMedia studiesPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much attention has been focused on Singapore's attempt to use information technology to build a knowledge-based economy. This paper examines the implications of the unintended consequences of the Internet in the restructuring of state and society relations in Singapore. We use the data on Singapore-based and Singapore-related websites to show (a) the diversity of positions expressed by civil society organizations, fringe groups and even mainstream segments of society; (b) the negotiation process between the state and civil society over various rights and how developments in cyber-space have implications for 'reality'; (c) how censorship and content regulation itself is a more complex multi-dimensional process such that while local politics is regulated, the multi-ethnic character of the resident population has led to greater religious tolerance such that religious groups banned in some countries have found a safe haven in Singapore and have used the city-state as a strategic Internet node.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations54
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of SociologySame topicSocioeconomic Development in AsiaFrench-language works237,207