MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099171473 · doi:10.1177/0162243908329182

G-COT

2009· article· en· W2099171473 on OpenAlexaff
Glen Norcliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Technology & Human Values · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Process (computing)Foundation (evidence)Consumption (sociology)Economic geographyProduction (economics)Technological changePerspective (graphical)Regional scienceBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographySocial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the process of technological innovation from a geographical perspective. Some explanations of technological change concentrate on the development of technology itself - in which makers play a central role, while other explanations focus more on consumption and the users of technology. In this paper, discussion will focus on interactions between makers and users, and on the particular places in which such interactions occur. It is proposed that these interactions, especially during the early phase of rapid product development, produce creative spaces. An adaptation of the social construction of technology (SCOT) model is therefore proposed which stresses the geographical settings in which rapid innovation occurs, and therefore is called geographical construction of technology (G-COT). The G-COT model is illustrated by the case of the Coventry bicycle industry from its foundation in 1869 to 1880 when this town had become the world's largest center of bicycle production.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.021

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience Technology & Human ValuesSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207