What Knowledge? Whose Fingertips? Negotiating and Serving Diverse Identities through Information Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME This paper develops the of problematic with respect to the social uses of and communication technology (ICT). It argues that while keeping in view the big picture of who has access and who does not, researchers should focus their attention on the micro-practices of ICT use. The premise of such an inquiry is that there is a lot to be learned from users' own creativity and the ways they appropriate new technologies for purposes aligned with their self-identity projects. Comparisons between the practices of people representing different intersections of diversity can be made on this basis to contribute to a refined understanding of the utility of the new media to various groups. The practical question to be tackled by policy-makers and service developers is: How can the design of new media content and services be improved in accordance with users' practices? Ce document aborde le probleme des > en ce qui a trait aux utilisations sociales des technologies de l'information et de la communication (TIC). L'auteur soutient qu'en tenant compte de la situation dans son ensemble a savoir qui a acces ou non, les chercheurs devraient se concentrer sur les micro-pratiques de l'utilisation des TIC. Cette enquete part du principe qu'on peut en apprendre beaucoup de la creativite des utilisateurs et des facons dont ils affectent les nouvelles technologies de l'information a des fins qui concordent avec leurs projets d'auto-identite. On peut etablir des comparaisons entre les pratiques des personnes representant differentes intersections de la diversite en vue d'approfondir sa comprehension de l'utilite des nouveaux medias pour differents groupes. La question pratique a laquelle doivent s'attaquer les decideurs et les concepteurs de services est : Comment pouvons-nous ameliorer la conception des nouveaux services et du contenu diffuses a l'aide des nouveaux medias conformement aux pratiques des utilisateurs? THE MULTIPLE DIGITAL DIVIDES The concept of have-nots first arose in the context of imbalances in newspaper readership favouring the well-off middle class. Authors Tichenor, Olien, and Donohue (1970) proposed the theory of the gap arguing that the informational deprivation of lower classes contributes to their alienation from social and political life, reinforcing their voiceless and powerless position. According to the original formulation of the theory, with the increase of the volume of transmitted by the mass media in society, the social segments with higher socioeconomic status are likely to adopt this faster than the lower socio-economic strata thus increasing the knowledge gap. In a 1974 article, Katzman applies the theory to the diffusion of new and communication technologies (ICT). He claims that the information rich social groups derive more benefits from ICTs than the information poor. In this way, the inequality between the two categories deepens. With the later proliferation of new and communication technologies and the respective new media, the contrast between haves and havenots acquired new significance. To the extent that these media grew into powerful conduits of and knowledge in society, access to them was recognised as a critical dimension of social inclusion. Thus the notion of the digital divide became a central keyword in the academic and political analyses of the inequitable distribution of access to new media and its complex and far-reaching consequences (see Sciadas, 2002 for an overview of initiatives). Education, information, and knowledge are justly seen as vital resources necessary for the adequate participation of citizens in the affairs of state and society. At a deeper level, access to these resources represents a critical determinant of the capabilities and functionings of persons in the sense proposed by Aramtrya Sen (see Fukuda-Part, 2002). …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".