MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096723037

Netizens: An Anthology Part IV- Contributions Towards Developing a Theoretical Framework Chapter 16 The Expanding Commonwealth of Learning: Printing and the Net

2015· article· en· W7096723037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinting pressCommonwealthParallelsFifteenthDigital printingQuarter (Canadian coin)The InternetSimilarity (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A revolution in human communications is happening. People around the world are connecting to each other via the new computer telecommunication networks now known as the Net. The Net, in a significant way, is a continuation of the important technological development of the printing press. The printing press might seem to be an unlikely choice for such a comparison considering the similarity that might be seen between the Net and, for example, television, the telephone, radio, or the news media. That is why it is important to compare the current networking developments with the history of printing to understand why the printing press should be seen as the forefather of the currently developing computer networks. With the invention of the printing press in the second half of the fifteenth century, there arose print shops and printing trades. Printing and the distribution of printed works grew rapidly. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, a global computer network has emerged which gives users the ability to post and distribute their views and news broadly and inexpensively. Comparing the emergence of the printing press to the emergence of the global computer network will reveal some of the fascinating parallels which demonstrate how the Net is continuing the important social revolution that the printing press had begun.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207