Reclaiming Geospatial Data and GIS Design for Indigenous-led Telecommunications Policy Advocacy: A Process Discussion of Mapping Broadband Availability in Remote and Northern Regions of Canada
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
Abstract Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and geospatial data are important advocacy tools adopted by a range of users, including telecommunications policy advocates. However, without the means to actively deconstruct and reshape such platforms, reclaim the geospatial data they utilize, and generate the visualizations they produce, the increasing adoption of these resources threatens to disempower some community-based user groups. In this article, we argue that the processes used to design such tools for policy advocacy must transparently reflect the socially constructed nature of the GIS systems and the geospatial data visualizations they generate, as well as the values and goals of the specific user groups they are designed to support. We ground this argument in a case study of a regulatory hearing on telecommunications infrastructure and services in Canada, and introduce a freely available online resource that documents our GIS design workflow in more detail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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