Living on the Edge: Old Colony Mennonites and digital technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology does not stand alone in any society. Each society negotiates its own relationship with technology and places its own value on it. Each chooses its own path. This thesis considers the path taken towards technology in the 21st Century by Old Colony Mennonites in Southwestern Ontario. Drawing on Coleman, relationships created by digital technologies are difficult to study as they extend or embed themselves into everyday life. While research into traditional Mennonite usage of static technologies exists, new forms of digital technologies – Smartphones, Texting, and Web 2.0 in particular – have not received the same attention. Initially, I asked whether a divide based on a volitional rejection of digital technology exists within the Old Colony. Ancillary questions surround issues of separation from mainstream society and economic disadvantages due to limited technology usage. Research consisted of interviews and observation. Four themes were identified that underpin this thesis; migration, economic, education and technology. Challenging stereotypes surrounding technology usage, evidence suggests it is not a digital divide Old Colony Mennonites negotiate but a continuum. Digital technology usage expands and contracts the walls surrounding isolation and separation from mainstream society. It allows ideas to flow between groups and for the shrinking of space locally and globally. It may lead some to move away from the church but it also may strengthen their ties. Increased literacy skills are identified as a stepping-stone, not towards the mainstream world but toward the desired better life, they left Mexico to pursue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".