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
In this personal reflection from a non-direct participant, the author compares the visions of the ‘information society’ at the WSIS with fragments of imagined and lived experiences of such a society in China, which has emerged as an increasingly important player at the global stage. While the author praises the liberal and egalitarian visions articulated in both the state and civil society declarations, she is wary of a technology-driven notion of social progress in the official documents. She also notes how the highly abstract language of the Declaration of Principles glosses over the specific logics of a capitalist global political economy and conceals the complicated and unequal power relationships between the various ‘partners’ and ‘stakeholders’ in the global political economy – governments, private corporations, civil society organizations and international and regional institutions. Finally, the author discusses how the complicated alignment of various positions at the WSIS underscores the inadequacy of a simplistic dichotomy between state and civil society and between the North and the South, and raises questions about the theoretical and strategic challenges of addressing issues such as uneven global civil society participation at the WSIS process.
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 | 0.001 | 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