Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in web applications have drastically increased levels of participation on the Internet. This trend is characterized by the ability of users to actively share and create content. Henry Jenkins has conceptualized this shift as part of a participatory culture now shaping the Internet. This shift has also been referred to as Web 2.0, a term denoting an updated or improved version of the web, centred on interactivity and user-generated content. Given this restructured version of the Internet, much of the discourse surrounding its use entails accounts of agency and empowerment. Despite the beneficial, user-centred rhetoric surrounding participatory culture, the extent to which new mechanisms of power permeate this interactive environment continue to be under-investigated. Certain characteristics inherent in Web 2.0 open doors for power and control to operate in ways that need more attention. The willingness of individuals to divulge vast amounts of personal information is troublesome, particularly in light of those attempting to manipulate this free flow of information, essentially capitalizing on the participatory nature of the Internet. Thus, before embracing the benefits of participatory culture, it is necessary to consider the forces that threaten it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".