MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The convergence of real and virtual communities in the digital space: a sociological review

2022· review· en· W4312437365 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSociopolitical Dynamics in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrinity College DublinUniversity of TorontoUniversity of MinnesotaPrinceton University
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Virtual spaceSociologyPoliticsField (mathematics)Convergence (economics)Process (computing)Public relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper represents a critical analysis of the processes caused by the development of virtual communities, and by the transfer of social practices of traditional communities into the space of interactive communication with subsequent transformations in the nature of interaction and the social roles of its participants. The authors introduce and summarize the approaches to communities such as traditional and virtual, and enunciate the distinctive characteristics of virtual and ‘real’ communities formed on the territory of geographically limited objects (villages, cities, countries), in similar conditions (historical, cultural, linguistic) and existing in a common regulatory and legal field. Based on the assumption that virtual communities are usually geographically disparate, implying significant differences in terms of historical memory, culture, native language, traditions, and other things, the authors prove that they remain communities in the sense that they unite groups of people based on common interests, goals, and views, ensuring the interaction of actors and an information exchange between them. However, the taking on the main distinctive characteristics of traditional communities, virtual communities lose some of the properties traditionally inherent in communities, such as a common territory, history, and culture. Virtual communities are defined by the authors as groups of actors interacting in a virtual space (for example, in a social network) beyond geographic and political boundaries and united by common interests or goals. They are characterized by a significant emotional involvement of the participants in the process of network interaction. In present conditions, when almost any created (and previously created) content is being digitized, real and virtual communities converge in the digital space: thus, (1) virtual communities take on some characteristics of traditional ones, and vice versa; and (2) the likelihood of adding or replacing spatial connections in real communities with virtual communications increases, which creates the convergent communities.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.277 · 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