MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096409470

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0002764210361689

2010· article· en· W7096409470 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureThe InternetRural areaIsolation (microbiology)Space (punctuation)Internet accessScale (ratio)Social media
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the impact of new digital media on the residents of Chapleau, a remote rural town in Northern Ontario, Canada. As in urban situations, broadband e-mail in Chapleau facilitates communication with friends and relatives who live locally and far away. But unlike their use in urban situations, mobile phones are rarely used locally in Chapleau: They are for trips outside of town. Broadband use has aided health care, shopping, and information gathering. Indeed, it is the increased connectivity to the outside that stands out, making Chapleau much less of an “island.” Keywords high-speed Internet, connectivity, rural communities, social inclusion, geographic isolation, Internet diffusion Social and geographical isolation are key challenges of life in rural and remote regions. Residents of such localities rarely see friends and family who live at a distance, and the availability of goods and services is more limited than in urban areas. Although small local populations may foster densely knit social relationships, they can limit the scale useful for diversified civic involvements. Yet, the isolation of rural life is far from a static, foregone conclusion, and the Internet (and associated information and communication technologies [ICTs]) may help to mitigate the downsides of small rural populations and physical distance from other people and places. Some pundits have optimistically imagined that information and communication technologies such as the Internet will reduce—and possibly even eliminate—“the tyranny of space and distance ” (Malecki, 2003, p. 201), neutralizing 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9430.862

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicICT Impact and Policies→French-language works237,207→