MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415045777 · doi:10.7202/1118937ar

Dialogues of digital commons and equitable resilience

2024· article· en· W4415045777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danai Toursoglou-Papalexandridou

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Resilience (materials science)Digital inclusionVulnerability (computing)Metropolitan areaPopularityPerspective (graphical)Inclusion (mineral)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first wave of 2020 pandemic, a rise in numbers and popularity of commons-based initiatives was observed worldwide, either in digital or cyber-physical form. From the open-source distribution and production of healthcare equipment to the installation of community fridges, such initiatives have influenced the resilience potential of communities. This research analyses disasters as an outcome of vulnerability and risk and seeks links between resilience and commons-based initiatives. It places the emergent digital and cyber-physical commons-based initiatives within metropolitan ecosystems and proposes the measurement of their reflections on the resilience of greater areas. That way, an equitable perspective on resilience measurements is proposed through the analysis of bottom-up initiatives and the inclusion of underrepresented groups. The paper consists of a literature review in the fields of resilience, social capital, commons-based initiatives and ecosystems, providing examples from Boston (MA, USA), Medellín (Colombia) and Athens (Greece). This research, being published after the first shock and within the constant stretch of the 2020 pandemic, aims at opening a discussion and adding to the academic knowledge a more equitable resilience perspective, as well as supporting and framing the impact of commons-based initiatives.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSens publicSame topicRegional resilience and developmentFrench-language works237,207