MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169619222 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2006v31n1a1744

Introduction: The Social Effects of Culture

2006· article· en· W2169619222 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dick Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantPublic relationsEmpirical researchCollective actionSociologyCitizenshipPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyBusinessEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report provides an overview of a research Initiative to Study the Social Effects of Culture (ISSEC) which was jointly undertaken by the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH), the Canadian Cultural Research Network (CCRN) and the University of Ottawa as a result of discussions that took place at a jointly-sponsored colloquium held in November 2003. The participants at that colloquium, which was entitled “Accounting for Culture: Examining the Building Blocks of Cultural Citizenship”, concluded that more basic research was required on the social effects of culture to supplement ongoing investigations regarding the economic impact of culture and to fill a significant knowledge gap in this area. In particular, it was noted that without a sound and plausible understanding of the connection between individual cultural involvement and other social behaviours and without rigorous empirical evidence, it is difficult to make the case that cultural consumption and participation produce socially valuable externalities that warrant public policy support. The participants at the workshop, held in Montreal on August 24 and 25, 2004, concluded that there were six possible functional social effects of culture: 1) fostering civic participation 2) contributing to community development 3) formation and retention of identity 4) building social cohesion 5) modifying values and preferences for collective choice 6) enhancing collective understanding and capacity for collective action. These effects, which are inter-related and mutually reinforcing, were tested via a series of research propositions, and resulted in a series of papers which are intended to contribute to the evidence base on this subject.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicSocial and Cultural DynamicsFrench-language works237,207