Material-discursive practices in technology standards development: A topic-modeling approach to technology evolution
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
Social interactions play a vital role in shaping technology evolution, especially in technology standards development involving multiple actors across the industry. However, previous studies mostly focus on the interactions between technology designs and socio-cognitive factors and pay little attention to the intertwined nature of social and material aspects of technologies. From the sociomaterial perspective, a key is to focus on the process of discursive materialization and its performative consequences in practice. Drawing on Orlikowski and Scottâs (2015) material-discursive perspective, this paper examines how the HTML5 (technology standard) evolves over time by investigating the processes of discursive materialization at the World Wide Web Consortium with the topic modeling techniques. The analysis shows that four fundamental mechanisms (process management, dialogical coordination, boundary work, and knowledge conversion) shape the evolution of HTML5. This study contributes to understanding processes of technology evolution from the sociomaterial perspective with a novel empirical approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it