Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Computer‐mediated communication (CMC) refers to a wide variety of communication processes that involve individuals or groups and are realized through computer technologies. As an object of study in the social and human sciences, it lies at the intersection of two academic fields with different intellectual traditions—the study of technology and society, and the study of communication and media. This entry traces the evolution of three distinct paradigms underlying public and scholarly efforts to understand the nature of CMC and its social implications. “Channel,” “community,” and “network” are used as working labels to designate these paradigms. Three main components are examined within each paradigm: the specific technological systems of computer mediation at its heart; the typical applications, organizational arrangements, and user activities that have grown around these respective technologies; and, finally, the key constructs, approaches, and heuristics that have guided academic analysts in asking questions, conducting studies, and producing findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".