MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036777359

Community intermediary organizations, community media and networking, and the Internet

2007· article· en· W7036777359 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetSocial mediaCommunity organizationGovernment (linguistics)Internet researchOnline communityFocus group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across Canada, thousands of community "intermediary" organizations act as links between the various levels of government and Canadians, often people experiencing poverty, health problems, social isolation and other forms of disadvantage. Community intermediary organizations produce community media to publicize to the larger society the issues and events they believe are important, and they network with each other and with their community members to share information. This research explores the community media and networking activities of four of these organizations in four different Canadian provinces, and the role of the Internet in these activities. For our analysis we draw on fieldwork data including transcripts from interviews and focus groups as well as content analysis of texts produced by the organizations. Our research situates these organizations as actors within wider social movements and considers their community media and networking activities in this context. The research contributes understanding about how the Internet is used by this specific group of social movement actors - community intermediary organizations - and the challenges and opportunities for and barriers to using the Internet for their community media and networking activities.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207