Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter analyzes the concept of “social acceptance” in the context of technology and service implementation, particularly in smart cities. Findings from two research projects pertaining to the relationship between people and smart-city initiatives are focused on, and the societal values and goals underlying technological implementation are examined. The first approach highlights individual attitudes, particularly those regarding the use of personal data in smart-city services, with emphasis on the role of trust between citizens and service providers. The second approach analyzes the dynamics of community acceptance or rejection throughout the service-implementation process, which underscores the importance of stakeholder interactions and may involve conflicts in some scenarios. A case study from the Sidewalk Toronto project is referenced, where challenges in garnering social acceptance ultimately resulted in the project’s suspension. The chapter concludes by suggesting a reevaluation into the conceptualization of social acceptance, with emphasis on the necessity to consider societal values, the ethical responsibilities of implementing technology, and the broader impact of technology on communities. Addressing these factors is crucial to realizing human-centered smart cities and fostering a harmonious relationship among people, society, and technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.007 |
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".