MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210961265

Developing a Socially Responsible Information Technology Environment

2011· article· en· W2210961265 on OpenAlexaff
David Crowther, Ana Maria Davila Gomez

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceInformation societyInformation AgeInformation technologyGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPolitical scienceTechnology and societyProcess (computing)Industrial societyCivil societyEconomic growthBusinessSociologySocial scienceLawPoliticsEconomicsGeographyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the dawn of the computer age it seems that the pace of development of information technology has continued to increase and that this pace of development shows no sign of slowing down. Computers are now a feature of everyday life, evident in the workplace, in our leisure activities and even controlling such equipment as washing machines and cookers. Recently however society has moved from the computing age to the information technology age (Castells 1996) and this has brought about significant developments for society. Information technology is now in process of transforming society to such an extent that it will soon become unrecognizable from the society in which many present adults grew up in. This transformation of society has potentially significant implications for all members of that society (Crowther & Rayman Bacchus 2004) and as such the role of information technology in shaping of that society has become a policy issues and needs to be addressed by every government to consider the role of that technology and the relationship between corporations and individuals as mediated through that technology. In developing a policy for the treatment of information technology in society therefore it is important that two issues are addressed and policies developed to deal with these issues. These two issues are:• What shape will that future society have and what role will individual members of society have within it?• Who will shape that future society and determine how and where the technology will be used, and for whose benefit?

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207