MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Living in the shadow of rural digital vulnerability: Navigating technology needs and resources

2025· article· en· W4412687592 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kathy L. Rush, Lindsay Burton, Cherisse L. Seaton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rural Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsShadow (psychology)Vulnerability (computing)Environmental planningBusinessSociologyGeographyEconomic growthEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceComputer securityPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As internet access becomes increasingly required for full societal participation, the risks of digital exclusion are accentuated for some populations, such as rural citizens. The objective of this qualitative descriptive study was to explore the digital experiences of rural residents in a Western Canadian province with differing broadband speeds. Participants were recruited in follow-up to an online survey which asked for interest in participation in focus groups to further discuss experiences with digital technologies. Rural adults (n = 32) with connectivity speeds both above and below the Canadian definition of high-speed participated in one of six focus groups. Transcripts from the recorded focus groups were thematically analyzed. The overarching theme that described participants' digital experiences was living in the shadow of rural digital vulnerability, or the interaction between their needs and available resources, with three sub-themes further detailing their experiences. Rural conditions threatened digital vulnerability, and produced harm when there was mis-alignment between participants’ needs and available resources. Compounding their susceptibility to vulnerability, were pressures to engage digitally, which participants described coming from services, work, and family and friends, and tech companies and emerging technology. Participants navigated threatened vulnerability by accommodating the technology to fit their lives and by adapting their lives to fit the technology within their infrastructure limitations . Overall, the digital experiences of rural residents highlight the role of context and individual agency in predisposition to risk, advancing a nuanced understanding of vulnerability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rural StudiesSame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207