MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035346609 · doi:10.4018/jskd.2010100804

Think Global, Act Local

2010· article· en· W2035346609 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Albert, Don Flournoy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital divideGlobalizationPublic relationsBusinessInformation and Communications TechnologyGlobal networkThe InternetWork (physics)Local communityTelecommunicationsPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to connect high-speed computing and other information technologies into broadband communication networks presents local communities with some of their best chances for renewal. Such technologies are now widely perceived to be not just a nice amenity among corporations and such non-profit organizations as universities but a social and economic necessity for communities struggling to find their place in a rapidly changing world. Today, citizens want and expect their local communities to be “wired” for broadband digital transactions, whether for family, business, education or leisure. Such networks have become a necessity for attracting and retaining the new “knowledge workforce” that will be key to transforming communities into digital societies where people will want to live and work. Since the Internet is a global phenomenon, some of the challenges of globalization for local communities and regions are introduced in this article and suggestions for turning those challenges into opportunities are offered. To attain maximum benefit from the new wired and wireless networks, local strategies must be developed for its implementation and applications must be chosen with some sensitivity to local needs. New Growth theory is used to show why communities must plan their development agenda, and case studies of the Intelligent Community Forum are included to show how strategically used ICTs are allowing local communities to be contributors in global markets.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4440.445

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207