MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559052595 · doi:10.15353/joci.v12i3.3289

Critical Questions for Community Informatics in Practice

2016· article· en· W2559052595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Wolske, Colin Rhinesmith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformaticsSet (abstract data type)Engineering ethicsCommunity of practiceField (mathematics)Medical educationSociologyLibrary scienceMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randy Stoecker noted in 2005 that CI remains underdeveloped as a field of practice as long as it does not have its own set of ethical guidelines. While Averweg & O’Donnell published a researcher-focused set of guidelines in 2007, a full-scale work for CI practice has not yet been completed. Workshops employing a range of collaborative techniques have been held at the last three Community Informatics Research Network conferences, identifying perspectives and ideas from attendees regarding ethical CI practice and guiding critical questions. This paper is published as a means to widen the audience reviewing and commenting on these.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207