MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158182823 · doi:10.1177/14614440222226280

Illusions of perfect information and fantasies of control in the information society

2002· article· en· W2158182823 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Society and Technology Trends
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociocultural evolutionInformation spaceLegitimacyControl (management)Information societyValue (mathematics)Information AgeMonopolizationSociologyBusinessEconomicsPoliticsPolitical scienceEconomyMarket economyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces the idea of ‘risk societies’ to highlight how conventional views of the information economy are confounded by the productivity paradox, uncertain demand for new information and communication technologies (ICTs), and the heterogenous qualities of information. Confronting these realities, the communication industries are using monopolization strategies, surveillance, and technological design in their, often elusive, attempts to manage risk and turn the scarce resources of the media economy - time, money and attention - into economic value. These strategies erode the ‘soft factors’ of trust, confidence, social networks and privacy that are vital to people’s willingness to embrace new ICTs and the legitimacy of the information society. Although these trends have created space for new privacy enhancing technologies and trust-brokers, the translation of sociocultural norms into technology and market-based solutions renders communicative spaces more opaque than ever.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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