MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757648783 · doi:10.1177/2050157917727319

Evolution of Korea’s mobile technologies: A historical approach

2017· article· en· W2757648783 on OpenAlexaff
Dal Yong Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueMobile Media & Communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEconomic geographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is to document the evolution of Korea’s mobile technologies. By using a historical approach, which is useful to determine the causes behind the changing processes of new technology, we examine the presmartphone era, focusing on the growth of mobile technologies before the successful launch of Korea’s smartphones in 2009. We divide the presmartphone era into four major periods, including the early mobile technologies period (between the 1980s and 1996), the CDMA period (between 1996 and the early 2000s), the Internet Platform for Interoperability (WIPI) period (2001–2007), and the iPhone period (between 2007 and 2009) before the introduction of locally made smartphones. We investigate multiple causes that led to the rise of the smartphone, both technologies and systems, surrounding the development of the early smartphones by analyzing not only power relations between several major players, such as the government, corporations, and global forces, but also the crucial role of mobile users as customers. We also map out the relationship between socioeconomic transitions and accompanying changes in mobile technologies, which are becoming part of contemporary smartphone technologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMobile Media & CommunicationSame topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207