MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968117381 · doi:10.1177/1461444819865984

What does the notion of “sovereignty” mean when referring to the digital?

2019· article· en· W2968117381 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSovereigntyRealmAutonomyIndependence (probability theory)EpistemologyOrder (exchange)SociologyPerspective (graphical)Control (management)Positive economicsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsComputer scienceBusinessEconomicsLawPoliticsManagementPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes how the notion of “sovereignty” has been and is still mobilized in the realm of the digital. This notion is increasingly used to describe various forms of independence, control, and autonomy over digital infrastructures, technologies, and data. Our analysis originates from our previous and current research with activist “tech collectives” where we observed a use of the notion to emphasize alternative technological practices in a way that significantly differs from a governmental policy perspective. In this article, we review several publications in order to show the difference, if not diverging ways in which the notion is being conceptualized, in particular by different groups. We show that while the notion is generally used to assert some form of collective control on digital content and/or infrastructures, the precise interpretations, subjects, meanings, and definitions of sovereignty can significantly differ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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