Mechanisms of communication-control (social cybernetics) based on information technologies and local development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social cybernetics, as an interdisciplinary field, has gained increasing interest in the last decade due to the influence of information technologies in society through connectivity, Internet of things, process automation, artificial intelligence among others. This research focuses on exploring the relationship between social cybernetics (communication and control mechanisms) based on information technologies and local development, using structural equation modeling as an analytical tool. The design was non-probabilistic, with a sample of 482 people. The independent variables under study were Use of ICT for communication between local authorities and the population (CAP), Use of ICT for collaboration between public and private institutions (CPPC), Use of ICT for shared decision making (SDM), Use of ICT for local development planning (LDP) and Use of ICT for knowledge management (KM); and the dependent variable was Local Development (LD). It was determined that there is a relationship between all of them except with CAP. The direction and magnitude of the other ratios were: + 0.1390; - 0.3661; + 0.4472 and + 0.8432 respectively. The coefficient of determination (R2) was 93.69% facilitating the prediction of future results. The model has an adequate fit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".