MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107856415 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2005v30n4a1656

How Connected are Canadians? Inequities in Canadian Households’ Internet Access

2006· article· en· W2107856415 on OpenAlex
Catherine A. Middleton, Christine K. Sorensen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNoticeThe InternetDemographic economicsInternet accessInternet usersContrast (vision)BusinessEconomic growthAdvertisingSocioeconomicsSociologyEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What can be learned from an analysis of Canadian household Internet adoption patterns? Households headed by lower-income, less-educated, or older Canadians have Internet adoption rates well below the Canadian average. In contrast, households with heads who are highly educated, earn above average incomes, or are younger than 55 are adopting the Internet at rates well above the average. In the simplest of terms, privileged Canadians are online, while their less-privileged compatriots are not. What is most surprising about these findings is that very little notice has been given to them, although Internet adoption data have been available for many years.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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