Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital communication is undoubtedly regarded as a revolutionized communication which has transformed the not just the ontology but the epistemology of communication and its process as a whole. It should also be noted that the digital communication has created gaps in the communication process which has a discernible impact on the society. Having said that the impact of technology on communication can neither be undermined nor overlooked; rather its potential can be attempted to be used in the best of its possibilities. To do that it is imperative to understand the hindrances in its way. This brings us to the discourse of digital divide. The word communication is derived from the Latin words, “communis” and “communicare”. “Communis” means sharing, can be of views, ideas, thoughts and happenings; while “communicare” means make something common. With these inferences, digital communication can be defined as ‘sharing of common views or ideas in a digital form’. The above understanding of digital communication becomes the genesis of the discourse as digital communication gets restricted only to its users. Against this backdrop, the study attempts to analyze the undermining of the semantic understandings of the epistemology of communication and how it has deviated from its basic meaning to accept the new paradigms, which fortunately or unfortunately nurtures a power inequality and creates a divide between information “haves” and “have-nots” on local, national and international levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".