MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334933345 · doi:10.1057/jit.2016.3

The Map and the Territory: An Ethnographic Study of the Low Utilisation of a Global eHealth Network

2016· article· en· W2334933345 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft systems methodologyeHealthContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementSociotechnical systemFlexibility (engineering)SociologyOperationalizationOpenness to experienceComputer sciencePublic relationsHealth carePolitical sciencePsychologyHealth informaticsEconomicsEconomic growthManagementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years were marked by the implementation of many eHealth projects using information and communication technologies to provide health services in developing countries. While generating great expectations, these projects remain poorly documented and available data suggest high failure rates. This raises a practical question: How are such eHealth networks to be effectively designed and implemented? This paper addresses this question. Specifically, it presents an ethnographic study of the Pan-African e-Network, a project which connects many hospitals all across India and Africa, providing medical teleconsultations and distance learning services. The study investigates the low utilisation of the network, an issue undermining its potential and efficiency. Factors contributing to this situation include communication barriers, the presumed ego of doctors, poor awareness of the project, and a lack of flexibility to work with the specificities of the connected sites. Above all, these factors point towards a dichotomous approach across the project's design and implementation, and taking two distinct yet related forms: (a) an ontological divide between technical and ‘non-technical’ domains; (b) a political sorting out of what is and what is not the project, aimed at neutralising and accounting for heterogeneous processes and practices. In both cases, low utilisation reveals tensions between processes of closure and control, and the openness of a life that will not be contained. Ultimately, this paper intends to destabilise binary modes of thinking as they crystallise oppositions between design and implementation, project and context, technical and social worlds, efficacy and improvisation, mastery and unruliness, map and territory.

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.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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