MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138959334 · doi:10.1177/089443930101900107

E-Governance and Smart Communities

2001· article· en· W2138959334 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Coe, Gilles Paquet, Jeffrey Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Computer Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsCorporate governanceSovereigntyInterdependenceGlobalizationPolitical scienceWork (physics)RubricEconomic systemPolitical economySociologyPublic administrationPublic relationsEconomicsEngineeringManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new information and communications technologies (NICT) and globalization have brought forth a period of great change. Globalization has triggered more intense economic and political interdependencies and has challenged fundamental assumptions about sovereignty and the role of the nation-state. As networks increasingly take hold and reshape the way people live, communicate, and work, the question of what kind of governance people will need in the new millennium is raised. Some elements of answers have been put forward under the general rubric of e-governance. It suggests a more community-based model of governance with greater connectivity being facilitated by new technology. Application of NICT locally leads to economic, social, and political transformations encapsulated by the new smart community movement. This article provides some preliminary mapping of how the collective intelligence of the communities would operate and how the new governance structures would work.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations334
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science Computer ReviewSame topicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsFrench-language works237,207