MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1141488181

Challenges in Technostress Research: Guiding Future Work

2015· article· en· W1141488181 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnostressWork (physics)Computer scienceStress (linguistics)Knowledge managementPsychologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the proliferation of technologies in organizations has been found to lead to technostress in employees and to various negative organizational consequences, much recent research has investigated the factors that can lead to technostress and how to prevent these factors from occurring. However, limited directions currently exist to guide further research in this area. Consequently, the present research-in-progress sets out to determine the key challenges that remain to be addressed by technostress research. The paper finds that technostress research needs to be more theory-driven, needs to evaluate stress more directly instead of indirectly through such concepts as job satisfaction that serve as proxies for stress, needs to advance more rigorous explanations of how and why technology creates stress in users, needs to advance more rigorous explanations of for what kinds of users technology creates stress, and needs to be more diversified in terms of perspectives, methods, measures, and paradigms used.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.150 · 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