Adapting the Structurationist View of Technology for Studies at the Community/Societal Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multilevel framework proposed in this chapter is particularly useful for research involving complex and multilevel interactions (i.e., interactions involving individuals, groups, organizations and networks at the community, regional or societal levels). The framework is influenced by three theoretical perspectives. The core foundation comes from the structurationist view of technology, a stream of research characterized by the application of structuration theory to information systems (IS) research and notably influenced by researchers like Orlikowski (2000) and Walsham (2002). In order to extend the framework to encompass research at the community/societal levels, concepts from social shaping of technology and from contextualism have been integrated. Beyond sharing a number of ontological and epistemological assumptions, these three streams of thinking have been combined because each of them offers particular concepts that are of great value for the kind of studies the authors wish to put forward: investigating the influence of information and communication technology (ICT) from a structurationist standpoint at levels that go beyond the organizational one.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".