MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309585287 · doi:10.5509/2022954787

Between Surveillance and Freedom: Techno-Politics in South Korea during the Covid-19 Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4309585287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaeho Kang

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPoliticsPolitical scienceCollectivismDemocracyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Development economicsSocial distancePolitical economyEconomic growthPublic relationsPublic administrationSociologyEconomicsLawIndividualismMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The South Korean response to the COVID-19 pandemic was mainly characterized—whether positively or negatively—as the efficient implementation of surveillance supported by the extensive deployment of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Yet, the fact that the South Korean management of the pandemic was also maintained by citizens' voluntary participation in stringent quarantine policies has received little critical attention. Through the lens of techno-politics, this essay examines the distinctive interplay of digital monitoring systems and civic engagement in South Korea during the pandemic, with particular reference to data surveillance, horizontal collectivism, and a networked multitude. In capturing the essential features of South Korean pandemic politics as reflecting key components of techno-populism, this essay draws out some social theoretical implications of reconsidering the increasingly close relationship between technology and democracy in the pandemic period.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207