MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

How fast is Australia's broadband (vs OECD) - 2018?

2019· dataset· en· W4394232449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Ferrers

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroadbandTelecommunicationsComputer scienceBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This data compares Australia's performance in broadband against the other 30 OECD nations (at Dec 2018). A graph ordered by count of subs over 100Mbps puts Australia in the bottom two (since we have no over 100Mbps at Dec 2018). A calc of weighted average puts Australia in the bottom 3 of 30 OECD countries, just ahead of Colombia and Mexico, behind Chile, Turkey and Austria. OECD data available at: OECD Broadband Portalhttps://oecd.org/sti/broadband/5.1-FixedBB-SpeedTiers-2018-06.xls Counts are measured in subscriptions per hundred people. SPEEDS>1.5/2 Mbps (megabits per second)>10 Mbps>25/30 Mbps>100 Mbps The categories seem to mean;1.5 - 10Mbps | 10-30Mbps | 30-100Mbps | >100Mbps. A graph aggregates to three categories; slow (Under 30mbps), medium, 30-100 mbps) and fast (>100 mbps) This data is a response to the NBN sponsored report from Alpha Beta suggesting Australia is 19 / 37 countries and ahead of Germany, France and China. NBN report at: https://nbn.tm/Speed-Check Based on Dec 2018 #OECD DATA of internet speeds as reported by each of 30 countries - AU is at the bottom end of speeds, one of the few to report 0% over 100mbps eg France 5 subs/100 ppl over 100mbps; Germany 6; Spain 9, US 9; Canada 10. #nbn Calculation of weighted average speed of broadband users puts Australia 32 / 34 countries at 7mbps. Impacted by large number of under 25mbps services (27/33).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicICT Impact and Policies→French-language works237,207→