Using electronic media for information sharing activities: a replication and extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports a replication and extension of a study that explored individual perceptions of factors that underlie the use of electronic media (electronic mail, world-wide-web, list serves, and other collaborative systems). The original study was conducted in a single Australian university. The study was replicated in a Canadian university. The replication allowed testing of the enlarged research model that involves organizational culture variables as well as attitudes toward information policies. Overall, the expanded research model includes culture variables, task and technology related variables, as well as individual attitudes and beliefs. We found that task and technology related variables explained more of the use of electronic media for sharing than culture related variables or the individual attitudes and beliefs. Specifically, task interdependence, perceived information usefulness and the user’s computer comfort were most strongly associated with the person’s use of electronic media. Two dimensions, employee orientation and need for achievement, of organizational culture had a significant influence on the use of electronic media for information sharing activities although less strongly than the task and technology related variables. Of the individual attitudes and beliefs, attitudes about information policies had a significant influence on the use of electronic media for information sharing activities. Besides the value of replication of a research model in another culture, the study contributed to the information systems literature by developing initial scales for two new constructs: attitudes about information policies and information culture.
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 | 0.052 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".