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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most recent academic studies of homophily—the tendency of people to interact with similar others—lean to a sociological critique of digital technologies, rather than revealing fundamentally positive outcomes. A few solid philosophical endeavors have emerged from the fields of philosophy of technology and enactive ethics. This article adopts a sociological perspective to argue that digital social networks can serve as an ethical infrastructure for facilitating effective communication. However, they also face the challenge of organizing the myriad of individual voices present within them, so that the necessary moral conditions to mitigate homophily can be established. From this viewpoint, it is suggested homophily should be viewed not as an individual’s right to expression but as a cultivated echo-moral cultured landscape. Homophily is not an input but an outcome. Homophily does not happen without evaluating reception. A voice without assessment lacks the ethical dimension. By applying the theory of the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 2008), homophily can be conceived as the contribution of significant others . Most importantly, effective communication can be attained when new secondary institutions organize the input of significant others into a meaningful generalized other (Mead, 2015). As a result, I propose that digital technologies allow for ameliorating the moral character of the individual by shifting how one looks at communication: from an individual’s right to a voice into an ordered culture of voices , from preserving rights to serving rightly. This perspective could illuminate policymakers to establish right processes to avoid homophily and help individuals and organizations achieve effective means of communication and deliberation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it