Introduction: Community Informatics and Community Development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community informatics, comparatively new discipline, is the study of information and communication technology (ICT) in community development work. Michael Gurstein (2000,p. 1) defines community informatics as a technology strategy or discipline which links economic and social development at the community level emerging opportunities in wide variety of information and communication technology applications. At the same time, Loader, Hague, and Eagle (2000) from the United Kingdom were describing community informatics as an approach that enables the connection of cyberspace to community places, field of investigation regarding the ways in which ICT can be geographically embedded and developed by community groups to support new and existing networks. Earlier, Schuler (1996) had described the social movement termed community networking, tracing the history of freenets, computer-supported community work, and community networks tying the community-based social networks of physical relationships to computer-based technology that permitted enhancement of these networks. This issue of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Journal of the Community Development Society furthers the exploration of community informatics and community development by providing number of illustrative and challenging articles about both application and critical thinking. This field is one in which the application of technology has provided leadership to thinking about the ways and means of application and the implications for community and technology theory. Through efforts to promote local initiatives and state and federal programs, the number and scope of applications have proliferated. At the same time, efforts to document these applications have been difficult to mobilize--much less organize--for intensive and critical study. Consequently, we know lot more about how than and with what effects. Even so many applications documented, the analysis of what worked and why is limited. In this issue, very modest attempt to catch has been assembled although it should be noted that our efforts are still more documentary than analytical. Nevertheless, it is extremely important to community development that this documentation is done as the rhetoric surrounding ICT developments has been very direct in its implications for improving community well-being. Since ICT represents what numerous observers and policy makers have called transformational the slowness of our efforts to think critically about what we are doing seems strange. Nevertheless, new journals recently emerging and many new books on multitude of related topics, the analytical field is gaining traction in field where technology and its applications changes very rapidly. ICT APPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Since the emergence of the Information Superhighway programs of the Clinton Administration, the United States has witnessed an explosion of ICT applications in many fields. Not to be out done, the European Union created its own supporting programs as did other English-speaking nations like Australia and Canada. In addition, many states, recognizing some limitations in federal programs, created their own initiatives. As multi-lingual capabilities became available in ICT applications, African and Latin American nations joined the movement. All were justified as helping citizens take advantage of ICT's powerful functions and speeding up the deployment of the technology, which had been left primarily to the private sector. In less advantaged countries, the argument was supplemented by the perception that ICT capacity was necessary to support development and participation in the global economy. Although the specific applications are too numerous to discuss here, the areas in which applications have been made cover the spectrum of community development interests. Central, of course, are applications that emphasize community building. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it