Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities are important social systems accountable for sustainability and continuity of humanity. They provide a variety of support to their members, ranging from physical to emotional. Fundamentally, communities evolve when people identify with each other; grow a shared sense of identity, shared culture, language, folklore and professional practices. Communities also develop when members identify with each other, build collective conscience and identify common goals—the village council, for example can work to fight crimes and social injustice. Though communities are to all intents and purposes immutable social system, they are not just empty social boxes waiting for people to populate. They are abstract social systems, where groups of people create shared identities, values, norms, and beliefs to systematically regulate their own behaviours. Since, communities are abstract social systems, the way they emerge, develop, change, and revitalises themselves, serving as focal interests to some individuals but remains mystery to many researchers. It is for this reason social capital is often used as an explanatory paradigm for the inner workings of communities. This Chapter provides an overview of what constitutes a community. It provides some background context to the theory of social capital. More specifically, this Chapter reviews social capital within place-based communities and the logic for extending it to virtual communities. The Chapter also outlines the goals of this book, its intended audience, and the utility derive from a model of social capital.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".