A hermeneutic interpretation of a controlled laboratory experiment: a case study of decision‐making with a group support system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We conduct a case study of a laboratory experiment involving a group support system and explain how it went awry. We take the perspectives of the experiment's human subjects and the researchers themselves as the basis on which to interpret what happened in the experiment. We interpret the researchers as imputing, to the human subjects, the ‘conduit model’ of communication and the ‘calculator model’ of human information processing, which together constitute an instance of Ricoeur's hermeneutic ‘world behind the text’. We interpret the human subjects as importing, into the laboratory, their socially constructed world of personal friends, their histories and even their popular culture – a world that is an instance of Ricoeur's hermeneutic ‘world in front of the text’. We explain the experiment's going awry as following from the researchers' not accounting for, much less being aware of, the disparity between the two worlds. In taking the human subjects and the researchers seriously as human beings, we make recommendations about how such experiments might be better conducted, particularly in information systems research.
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 | 0.065 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".