Participatory videoconferencing for groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades after its introduction, videoconferencing remained a marginal communications medium, used primarily by corporate businesses. However videoconferencing has been taken up by a wide range of individuals, groups and communities. Videoconferencing occurs when people at geographically dispersed sites communicate with each other by transmitting audio and visual data through videoconferencing systems. Group videoconferencing - or multi-site videoconferencing - refers to linking individuals or groups of people in three or more sites using videoconference systems. This unique method of communicating face-to-face without being there in-person is currently being used for education and learning, health and medicine, meetings and conferences, personal communication and community-building. Group videoconferencing does not necessarily lead to participation and knowledge retention; for this to occur it must be used thoughtfully and strategically. Based on the work of researchers and practitioners in the field and an analysis of participatory videoconferencing literature, this paper suggests potential good practices for increasing participation during group videoconferences.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".