Guest Editorial: Information Ethics and Global Citizenship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spring of 20i4, scholars from around world gathered at University of Alberta, Canada, to dig deeply into intersection of theories and practices of global citizenship and information ethics. These are two concepts that are not often brought together in such an intentional manner. This journal issue offers seven of papers presented, plus responses to three of these papers, surfacing ideas on edges of academic disciplines and professional practices.The International Center for Information Ethics frames topic, in part, as being about the development of moral values in information field; creation of new power structures in information field; information myths; hidden contradictions and intentionalities in information theories and practices; and development of ethical conflicts within field.i By bringing this together with concerns of global citizenship research, an emerging field of study about multiscalar experiences of globalization and citizenship with a focus on workings of global systems, issues, and actions by governments, social movements, and corporations, among other actors, we began to see intersections and patterns between acts and scales of citizenship, and way information is created, exchanged, surveilled, and controlled. Our chosen act of locating information ethics within global citizenship concerns highlights our commitment to a global social justice approach to research and scholarship across these disciplinary boundaries.We began our early conversations with questions about scholars at risk, because of their social justice work and how role of public intellectual has shifted prompted by intense globalization, dominance of corporatization, and marketization of academic labor. These conversations were also in context of recent challenges to privacy and government surveillance as citizens around world struggle to understand implications of high profile cases of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, charges against Chelsea Manning for her whistleblowing acts, and Edward Snowden's bold release of data about USA National Security Agency's surveillance practices. With information becoming more and more privatized and technology more sophisticated, difficult ethical issues become every day concern of scholars and educators everywhere. These issues move across space, actors, and institutions creating need for understanding that is multiscalar (local, national, global), engaging multiple epistemic and ontological as well as geographic locations in world, and able to identify how discourses and practices of oppression move around world through institutional/ institutionalizing structures. We look for an intercultural and anti-colonial disruption of binary local/global information studies that surfaces global citizen knowledges and emancipatory possibility of information ethics as a foundation. The articles and responses to them in this journal issue contribute to such understanding.In opening piece, Exploring Information Ethics: A Metadata Analytics Approach, Ali Shiri (University of Alberta) helps to frame topics found within information ethics by creating a knowledge mapping of scholarly activities. This map provides a tool to encourage collaborative research and scholarship. Through building understanding and common language, diverse contributions to information ethics scholarship can become accessible in many related disciplines. To follow, John Buschman (Seton Hall University) describes information ethics as being located, first and foremost, in a public and political setting. In his work, Citizenship and Agency Under Neoliberal Global Consumerism: A Search for Informed Democratic Practices, he explores vital role of information in contributing to democratic, global citizenship. He reminds us of ethical responsibility of practicing information professionals to address democratic needs of public sphere, particularly responsibility to address urgent social, political, and environmental issues that face us on this planet. …
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.154 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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 it