MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157010671 · doi:10.1177/1742766509348672

Can the use of digital media favour citizen involvement?

2009· article· en· W2157010671 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Media and Communication · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitCivil societyPoliticsInformation societyPublic relationsContext (archaeology)SociologyICTSPolitical scienceDigital divideSocial mediaSocial movementInformation and Communications TechnologyMedia studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present here the results of recent studies on the emergence in Quebec of associations of a new kind, which we call technology activist groups. These groups consist of individuals who, on the basis of their own expertise in computer programming or in establishing specialist technological structures (WiFi hotspots), are developing social practices involving information technologies (ICTs). We try to give some elements of a response to some specific questions such as: What effects are these technology activists having on the dynamics of community activism in Quebec? In a broader context, at the level of political imagination in today’s societies, how far can these technical activist groups act politically to help redefine the project of the coming ‘information society’? And conversely, can the project of a ‘knowledge-sharing society’ — as formulated by the representatives of civil society organizations at the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) in Tunis — help to redefine the aims and actions of actors in community politics?

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.235 · 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