Sustaining Community Access to Technology: Who Should Pay and Why.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on their research on several national, regional, local projects, and an analysis of the Canadian federal governments main Internet public access programs, the authors argue that as the digital divide has evolved and changed, changes in a conception of this and approaches to sustainability are required. This requires defining sustainability in terms of supporting community organizations that provide social development and related content and services to the public, with support for core services, content development as well as technical access and networking. The authors further argue that governments, and in particular the federal government, has the primary role for providing sustainability funding at the community level to address the digital divide and development goals. 
 
 A conceptual approach is required that extends our understanding of the problem of the digital divide and sustainability to the everyday lived circumstances and needs of citizens and their local communities. Such an approach also permits us to consider sustainability in terms of being primarily a role for governments to provide funding to the community service organizations that provide services at the community level in order to address inequalities and under development. Funding should be used for technical services, the development and maintenance of core operations (staff, volunteers, overheads) and content services that can be accessed using communication technologies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".