Increasing social connection through a community-of-practice-inspireddesign
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
COMMENTARY: CHRISTINE URQUHARTCatherine Burns and Adam Euerby used cognitive work analysis to help design a website intended to foster community of practice principles in order to improve networking. First, we need to appreciate the history of cognitive work analysis, and where the ideas about the work domain analysis come from. It's important to recognise that both cognitive work analysis and communities of practice have evidence behind their concepts, and that they are not merely theoretical frameworks that seem to work.Cognitive work analysis comes from studies conducted by Rasmussen and colleagues at the Riso National Laboratory in Denmark in the early 2000s (Naikar, 2017). They were tasked with improving the safety of nuclear power plants in Denmark. Observations confirmed that the hardware was indeed reliable, but that, despite this, accidents could still happen. Human error appeared responsible, when workers were confronted with unfamiliar circumstances. However, the research indicated that had the workers known fully the state of the system, they could have formulated an appropriate response. Later research examined six professional technicians, problem-solving with different types of instruments, which each had a particular fault. Detailed analysis of the verbal protocols (think-aloud protocols) produced a coding scheme that revealed patterns in the reasoning used by the technicians. The technicians reasoned at different levels of abstraction (from the physical properties to the general functional purpose) and at different levels of decomposition (whole system through to a component). This formed what they termed the two-dimensional abstraction-decomposition space. Generally, the technicians started in the most abstract (purpose)/whole system corner and worked through to the opposite corner (physical form/component) – although the line of working could zig zag a little. These findings led to the first stage of cognitive work analysis modelling – the work domain analysis. This was developed by Vicente (2002) (among others) for design of interfaces that displayed three modes of cognitive reasoning: skill-based, rules-based and knowledge-based behaviour. The aim of systems designed through CWA is often to support workers in dealing with unexpected situations. Workers should be able to explore a number of ways of dealing with the situation while remaining within the boundaries of acceptable performance (Naikar, 2017).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle