Reiterating the boundary: community discourse in light of proposed technological change on Vinalhaven Island, Maine, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative work is a case study of Vinalhaven, a small Maine island, and its negotiation of the intersection of technology use, space, place, and identity. Using a phenomenologically informed theoretical approach coupled with a version of Foucault's archaeology of discourse (1972, 1994) as a method of analysis, the role of place and space is explored in the context of a bounded community's public discussion about whether or not to build a cell phone tower on the island. In opposition to the oft-cited narrative of technology-asconnective-panacea, the discourse of the community surrounding the potential technology serves to complicate the community's expression of its boundaries. If anything, the potential introduction of a new form of connectivity for the island community prompts a reaffirmation and re-articulation of the community's boundaries, its sense of self, and its experience of isolation. The case study offers insight into approaches to the introduction of connective technologies and infrastructures in island communities, thus extending both place-based theories of technology and the depth of island studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".