Tecnologías digitales carismáticas, imaginario sociotécnico y ambivalencia: un estudio cualitativo sobre el uso de tablets por parte de personas mayores en Minas, Uruguay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2015 Uruguay has been developing Plan Ibirapitá—a program that consists of the delivery of tablets to low-income older people for free, who can also access training. This article frames this program as a ‘sociotechnical imaginary’, based on ‘charismatic technologies’, and presents a qualitative study of a group of how a group of older people negotiate the presence of the tablet in their lives. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews in the city of Minas (the capital of Lavalleja Department, with the oldest population in the country) and analyzed through thematic analysis. The central category is ‘generalized ambivalence’, which interpenetrates with other categories. These other categories are related to ‘training resources’, a ‘lack of patience to operate the tablet’, ta ‘lack of Internet’, the fact that ‘tablets broke down and required updates’, and the notion that the busy lives of elderly people affect their use of the tablets. In accordance with recent empirical findings and theoretical approaches, the article suggests that it may be inappropriate to presuppose abstract, pre-existing technological needs of older people that can be identified and translated into their well-being through charismatic-technological interventions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".