Limitations to developing virtual communities in the public sector: A local government case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".