Doing family online: (In)formal knowledge circulation, information‐seeking practices, and support communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Drawing on the theory of polymedia and on the role of information and communications technology (ICT) in (re)defining the articulation between the private and the public, this introduction reflects on what ICT does to and for families around the world. Background Through the development of networking platforms, video call applications, personal sites, and collaborative information platforms, ICT has changed the way people live, love, and interact. It has also afforded new ways to “do family.” Method By featuring studies from a variety of national and regional contexts (Canada, Chile, Ghana, Greece, Moldova, South Korea, Ukraine, the Netherlands, United States, and Turkey), it establishes a dialogue between disciplines and a fruitful cross‐fertilization of research topics, methodologies, analyses, and theoretical perspectives. Results This special issue explores (a) the nexus among family life, relationships, and ICT and (b) the relation between the everyday lived experiences of family members and the broader social structures that circumscribe the width and breadth of those experiences. Conclusion The contributions show the porosity of the boundary between public and private spaces. Alternative forms of expertise and parenting norms are emerging online. ICTs are integrated into parents' information‐seeking and sharing practices, and emotional support. They sustain relationships between family members across distance. However, inequalities regarding access to the Internet and computer literacy still jeopardize digital citizenship and democratization. Implication The contributions in this special issue highlight the need for better structuring of interventions and policies to support families by using up‐to‐date ICT systems and creating mentorship programs and digital mediation for family professionals and beneficiaries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".