Extending socio-technical congruence with awareness relationships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordination in software engineering is necessary for software teams. To study coordination, researchers need a a way to conceptualize and measure it|one such measure is socio-technical congruence. Within a team setting, awareness of other's tasks and abilities enables coordination, but the conceptualizations for socio-technical congruence do not include awareness. In this paper, our goal is to include awareness in socio-technical congruence. To do this, we conduct an empirical investigation of a team's awareness behaviour. We examine how developers transmit awareness information in a global software-engineering environment in a project called Ship using direct observations, interviews, and a questionnaire. We found that team members were satisfied with using simple awareness mechanisms such as email and meetings. We also identified that experienced team members served as brokers and filled coordination gaps, and that team members used multiple types of media simultaneously. Based on this work, we propose an aggregated sociotechnical congruence measurement that can be used to specify multiple relationships, such as awareness relationships, as interactions that satisfy technical dependencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it