MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539744240

The Role and Impact of Community Newsletters in Fostering Social Cohesion and Community Development

2006· article· en· W2539744240 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David W Bruce, Katrina R. Ellis, Nancy Delury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationSense of communityCohesion (chemistry)NewspaperCommunity developmentPublic relationsCommunity buildingCommunity organizationSociologySense of placeCommunity cohesionRural communityPolitical scienceMedia studiesPsychologySocial scienceSocial psychologySocioeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional forms of communication - printed newspapers and newsletters, personal conversation, and much more - are often forgotten in the rush to embrace new forms of information and communication technologies. In small rural communities these more traditional forms have been important tools for facilitating community development while fostering a sense of belonging and attachment to the community. This paper assesses the impact of the creation of a community newsletter by volunteers in the small rural unincorporated community of Lot 16, Prince Edward Island in March 2004. The results of a household survey and key informant interviews reveal that the newsletter is widely read, has contributed to a greater sense of awareness about community activities and people, and a greater sense of interest in the community as a whole. Furthermore, the newsletter is thought to be building some potential or capacity in the community for other activities in the future.

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)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207