MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Limitations to developing virtual communities in the public sector: A local government case study

2005· article· en· W2093828157 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorna Stefanick, Edward C. LeSage

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePublic relationsThe InternetLibrary scienceSociologyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article explores how new information and communication technologies affect public administration practice. It examines efforts by the University of Alberta to develop a web‐based “meeting place,” an on‐line community of practice in the local government sector that was to be a forum for practice‐building discourse and a resource for professional development courses. While the MuniMall project was not an unequivocal success, it does provide important lessons for others who are contemplating similar projects. There are important differences between “open” and “closed” virtual communities, as well as differences among professional groups with respect to their receptivity to engaging in discourse in an open forum. For virtual communities targeted towards a specific professional community, critical factors for ensuring success include the readiness of site architecture upon rollout, as well as the culture, capacity and readiness of the audience. Sommaire: Le présent article approfondit la maniére dont les nouvelles technologies de I'information et de la communication influent sur I'exercice de l'administration public. I1 examine les efforts déployés par 1'Université de l'Alberta pour mettre en place un « lieu de rencontre » sur Internet, réseau en ligne d'échanges de pratiques dans le secteur de l'administration municipale qui devait être un forum de discussions sur le renforcement des pratiques et une resource pour les cours de perfection‐nement professionnel. Alors que le project « MuniMall » n'a pas été un succès sans équivoque, il foumit des leçons importantes à ceux qui envisagent des projects simi‐laires. I1 existe de grandes différences entre les communautés virtuelles « ouvertes » et « fermées », ainsi que des différences parmi les groupes professionnels en ce qui conceme leur réceptivitéà s'engager dans un discours au sein d'un forum ouvert. Pour les communautés virtuelles visant une communauté professionnelle particulière, les facers critiques de succès comprennent l'état de preparation de l'architcc‐ture ciu site dès sa mise en place, ainsi que la culture, la capacité et l'état de préparation de l'audience.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207