MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592637757 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2017v42n1a3103

Social Innovation Partnerships: An Opportunity for Critical, Activist Scholarship

2017· article· en· W2592637757 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karen Louise Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSocial innovationDigital scholarshipPublic relationsLiteracySociologySpace (punctuation)Political scienceCritical mass (sociodynamics)Media studiesLibrary scienceSocial sciencePedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 2013–2015, I was a Mitacs Elevate postdoctoral fellow with Mozilla. The program of research aimed to foster digital literacy capacities among youth and informal educators in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and specifically examined the extension of the Mozilla community’s free and open source software production practices to build a digital literacy network called Hive Toronto. This article presents results from a document analysis (n = 21) of applications, blogs, and other materials revealing how the people, challenge, practices, and results associated with social innovation unfolded through research with Hive Toronto. Based on these findings, the article demonstrates that tensions linger between industrial and social innovation funding, but that there is space for critical and activist research when building such partnerships.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0540.059
Scholarly communication0.0390.025
Open science0.0050.043
Research integrity0.0130.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicOpen Source Software InnovationsFrench-language works237,207