History of technology and humanitarian technologies: A case study regarding the design and deployment of humanitarian technologies among rural communities in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports a project that integrated grass-root communities of Alto Magdalena and Tequendama, Cundinamarca and academics from Uniminuto (Colombia) and Algoma (Canada) Universities. This partnership led to the participative design of a technological training program about regional development. This program combines three elements: world views, ancestral knowledge and the needs that the farming and peasant communities of Cundinamarca perceive as imperative. The authors were invited to join the initiative by leading a historical reflection on the conflicting views of technology as a source of community and environmental difficulties, and also as an opportunity to overcome the pressing challenges that rural communities face nowadays (i.e. young people migration, low productivity and environmental degradation). This dialogue between academics and community members dealt with technological initiatives, such as energy for lighting and cooking, grass-root initiatives for rural connectivity and social media, water & sanitation, and agricultural technologies. In addition, a debate took place that focus on the community memory about large scale institutional programs for technological development. The paper discusses the motivation, methodology, outcomes, and conclusions of this partnership. The discussion has a socio-technical perspective, linking concrete technological initiatives to a broader understanding of the economical, political, cultural and environmental factors that define successful humanitarian technology implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".