MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167189706 · doi:10.5565/rev/redes.127

El hogar en red

2008· article· es· W2167189706 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tracy Kennedy, Barry Wellman

Bibliographic record

VenueRedes Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales · 2008
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceCartographyArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ResumenProponemos que los individuos, en lugar de las solidaridades familiares, se han convertido en la principal unidad de conectividad en el hogar. Muchos hogares no funcionan como grupos tradicionales densamente conectados sino como redes sociales más dispersas donde los individuos tratan de hacer compatibles sus dispares horarios y agendas. En un momento en el que muchas personas ejercen múltiples roles individuales en casa, en la comunidad y en el trabajo nos preguntamos: ¿cómo se comunican entre sí los adultos miembros del hogar? ¿Cómo utilizan los adultos miembros del hogar las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TICs) para organizar, comunicar y coordinar su tiempo libre y su comportamiento social dentro y fuera de casa? Las entrevistas y encuestas realizadas en 2004-2005 en East York (Toronto, Canadá) muestran que los hogares siguen conectados –pero como redes más que como grupos solidarios. Describimos cómo los individuos en red construyen puentes entre sus relaciones y se conectan entre sí dentro y fuera de casa. Las TICs han permitido a los miembros del hogar la capacidad de seguir sus caminos separados mientras permanecen conectados –por teléfono móvil, correo electrónico e IM, así como con las líneas telefónicas tradicionales. De ese modo, en lugar de desmembrar las familias, las TICs con frecuencia facilitan la comunicación, las relaciones y la integración funcional. AbstractWe argue that individuals, rather than family solidarities, have become the primary unit of household connectivity. Many households do not operate as traditional densely-knit groups but as more sparsely-knit social networks where individuals juggle their somewhat separate agendas and schedules. At a time when many people enact multiple, individual roles at home, in the community and at work, we ask: how do adult household members communicate with each other? How do adult household members use information and communication technologies (ICTs) to organize, communicate and coordinate their leisure and social behaviour both inside and outside the home? Interviews and surveys conducted in 2004-2005 in the Toronto, Canada area of East York show that households remain connected – but as networks rather than solidary groups. We describe how networked individuals bridge their relationships and connect with each other inside and outside the home. ICTs have afforded household members the ability to go about on their separate ways while staying more connected –by mobile phone, email and IM– as well as by traditional landlines. In such ways, rather than pulling families apart, ICTs often facilitate communication, kinship and functional integration.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.288 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRedes Revista hispana para el análisis de redes socialesSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207