MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584580833 · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-105481

Liminality at Work : Mobile Project Workers In-Between

2014· book· en· W1584580833 on OpenAlex
Elisabeth Borg

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

VenueLinköping University Electronic Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityCompetence (human resources)AmbiguityWork (physics)Public relationsPsychologySociologyEngineeringComputer scienceSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project-based work constitutes an increasing part of contemporary working life. For the individual worker, project-based work does not only entail performing specific tasks -it also entails equally important aspects of dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity, to create swift trust with new team members, recurrently enter new project, and leave old projects behind. Project-based work can arguably be described as a form of boundary work. This thesis adopts the conceptual lens of liminality in order to illustrate the challenges experienced by the individual project worker, the practices used to deal with these challenges, and the competence developed by the individual to handle projectbased work. In particular, the studies reported here addresses how mobile project workers -more specifically, technical consultants performing their work in client projects -experience and deal with project-based work.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.227 · 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