MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7010115271

Governing data in a worker cooperative

2023· other· en· W7010115271 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAaltodoc (Aalto University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Work (physics)Data governanceInformation governanceControl (management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data governance is critical for organizations looking to leverage information and communication technology for business benefits. Common approaches to data governance, however, are based on corporate control structures that are incompatible with cooperative principles and fail to consider the characteristics of cooperative organizations.
\n
\nThe purpose of this thesis is to develop an understanding of data governance in worker cooperatives in the Global South and provide recommendations for implementing data governance in this context. Building on a literature review and an empirical case study of the Self-employed Women’s Association, this thesis provides insights into how data is governed within worker cooperatives and the social dilemmas that emerge. Additionally, it explores how data governance can be implemented within worker cooperatives while maintaining a sense of member control in decision-making.
\n
\nThe results show how data governance practices are very targeted and need-based. Data is often managed in an unstandardized form and informal norms play a big role in its governance. Three social dilemmas emerge: increased online information sharing can nourish information asymmetry, trust as a governance mechanism can become problematic with complex technology involving multiple parties, and closing the data knowledge gap is challenging due to several reasons related to resources, access, and information asymmetry.
\n
\nThis thesis gives practical implications that will benefit cooperatives building self- governed data systems. New technologies for knowledge sharing must be implemented with consideration and such that all members can participate. Formally defining boundaries for data resources and setting ground rules for sharing, access, and use is key. Further, building successful participatory data governance in a context of low data literacy could benefit from a data privacy tutoring program.
\n
\nThis thesis can influence policymakers and developers of ICT by showcasing the importance of inclusivity, legislative initiatives, and policy development in balancing the power dynamics of the digital world, protecting the most vulnerable, and ensuring a fair playing field in the future.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.045

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAaltodoc (Aalto University)French-language works237,207