MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189950493

Intelligent Mobile Devices and Their Impact: Perspectives, Lessons, Issues and Challenges

2013· article· en· W3189950493 on OpenAlexaffabout
Prabir K. Neogi

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunicationsExcellencePhoneCommissionExecutive directorEngineeringLibrary scienceManagementPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Panel Moderator: Dr. Prabir Neogi, Visiting Fellow, Carleton University Proposed Panellists: Prof. Alison Gillwald, Director, Research ICT Africa! & Associate Director, The EDGE Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa Prof. Rekha Jain, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) and Executive Chair of the IIMA-IDEA Telecom Centre of Excellence (IITCOE) Prof. Judith Mariscal, Professor, Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica (CIDE), Director of the Telecommunications Research Program Telecom-CIDE, and member of the Steering Committee of DIRSI Prof. Catherine Middleton, Professor, Ted Rogers School of Information Technology Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada Dr. Jean-Paul Simon, Senior scientist and Consultant to the Information Society Unit, Directorate-General JRC, IPTS, European Commission and member EuroCPR Board Use of the increasingly intelligent mobile phone has exploded in recent years. It has become the most widely used communications device in the world, and the access device of choice in the developing world. The ITU estimates that there were some 6 billion mobile service subscriptions by the end of 2011, some 86% of the global population. ITU estimates indicate that mobile broadband services grew by some 40% worldwide in 2011 and that there are now twice as many mobile broadband subscriptions as fixed ones. The Boston Consulting Group forecasts that by 2016, mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets could account for four out of five broadband connections. Smartphones such as the Apple iPhone and its many competitors are already in widespread use in many countries, tablet computers are becoming increasingly popular and laptops now compete with desktop PCs in functionality. As high-speed mobile Internet access becomes more readily available and affordable, the smartphone and other handheld devices are widely being used for business applications as well as for personal and social purposes. This means that the demand for additional spectrum bandwidth, which is the lifeblood of mobile communications services, is likely to outstrip the supply for the next few years. Governments have a key role in efficiently allocating and managing the use of the spectrum (e.g. through well designed auctions, re-farming valuable spectrum released by the conversion from analogue to digital TV broadcasting, shared and license-exempt spectrum use regimes) and meeting the demand for additional spectrum bandwidth. Issues and challenges related to the efficient allocation and management of the spectrum will become an important component of any national broadband strategy. This panel will focus on the socio-economic impact of the cell phone and other more intelligent mobile devices in both developing and developed countries, the role that wireless access and mobile broadband play in various national and regional broadband strategies, and how wireless communications is integrated with the wireline component of such strategies. The proposed panelists will discuss strategies being used in Australia, the EU, the US, South Africa, Latin American countries like Brazil and Mexico, South Asian countries like India, among others. We wish to find out what has worked, what did not, the problems encountered and whether there are lessons to be learned that are of general applicability, as well as for the US and Canada. At the same time, we would like to explore the possibilities and limitations of learning from other nations’ and regions’ experiences. A dialogue between the policymakers and researchers could help to identify current and future policy issues which will require further research work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0180.024
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207