MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586817 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v36i1.8091

Empowering Manitoba: Community Broadband Initiatives, Digital Adoption, and Priorities for Digital Transformation in all corners of the Province

2025· article· W4415586817 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wayne Kelly, Joel Templeman, Fallon Brook, Kalin Contois

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital transformationDigital divideBroadbandThe InternetService providerMainstreamInternet access

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital technologies are critical to sustainable livelihoods in rural, northern and remote Canada. The Rural Development Institute (RDI) and Internet Society Manitoba Chapter (ISOC MB) are partnering on an initiative that explores digital challenges related to connectivity and digital development in rural, northern and remote Manitoba. Our study employs a multifaceted approach, investigating digital infrastructure, community broadband initiatives, digital adoption, and digital capacity-building practices. Within rural, northern and remote contexts, our objectives include identifying and learning from successful and unsuccessful community-based connectivity initiatives and establishing an inventory of digital services in underserved areas. Integral to our project is the creation of a podcast series that amplifies the voices from all corners of Manitoba, showcasing their digital journey. This platform allows community members, policymakers, and digital service providers to share experiences, challenges, and successes, contributing to a rich digital transformation narrative across the province. Our presentation will discuss the challenges and opportunities for innovation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing in addressing the digital divide and potential within rural, northern and remote communities.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207