Information Society as a Global Policy Agenda: What Does It Tell Us About the Age of Globalization?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of information society commands worldwide attention: diverse constituencies work at closing the gaps in access to and in use of digital technology. Why are such efforts directed specifically at the issue of the information society? In this article I argue that the redirection of world society's attention towards this issue is related to the correspondence between the dimensions of globalization and those of the field of information and communications technologies. Specifically, I highlight five such shared dimensions: economic transactions, political relations, globality, networks, and world norms. In this way, the theme of information society was quickly defined as a global social problem because it corresponds to the themes of the era of globalization. I also argue that while various realist theories of globalization focus solely on the dimensions of economic and political transactions, world society theory expands on these by highlighting the cultural and institutional dimensions of globalization.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.065 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".