MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229898160 · doi:10.25916/sut.26224613

Tipping points for broadband users

2024· article· en· W2229898160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Trevor Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroadbandTipping point (physics)Computer scienceBusinessTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper draws upon Malcom Gladwell's notion of 'The Tipping Point' in the context of the development of new broadband services. The new Rudd Labor government has committed $4.7 billion of Australian government capital to assist in the construction of a new national fibre broadband network. Broadband platforms have enabled a different service paradigm from all of their predecessors, and three categories of broadband services are discussed here---called managed, unmanaged, and publicly supported services. Examples of related service innovations are drawn upon from overseas models, particularly The Netherlands and Canada. The notion of the 'tipping point' is then examined in the context of three different end-user domains related to broadband systems; namely social networking sites, community ownership models that build community services, and the vexed eHealth service domain. The government National Broadband Network (NBN) tender process appears to have given little attention to what services are likely to be acceptable to, or needed by, Australian broadband consumers in the future. Hence a call is made for the 'tipping point' that is so much needed---a new policy framework that will provide constructive consumer participation on key policy decision making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0180.019
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.005

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207