MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980732527 · doi:10.1386/jots.2.2.153/1

Intranet use: a study of five Swedish organizations

2005· article· en· W1980732527 on OpenAlexaff
Björn Banck, Christina Amcoff Nyström

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsAssociation for the Advancement of Scandinavian Studies in Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntranetCompetence (human resources)Knowledge managementContext (archaeology)BusinessWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePublic relationsThe InternetPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a study carried out in 2002, concerning the use of an Intranet in five Swedish organizations. The purpose is to investigate in what way different aspects influence the use and understanding of an Intranet. An explorative approach is used, based on two interview guides. The first guide is aimed at managers and information systems (IS) representatives and covers background aspects of the Intranets, as well as data about the businesses and their Intranets. The second guide is directed to all kinds of users and covers aspects of the use of an Intranet and in what way users can influence the content and understanding of it. The persons interviewed represent end-users, managers and members of the IS staff. Results show that the Intranets in the study are poorly matured and that the main-use mode is ‘publishing’. The underlying philosophy of the Intranets seems to be self-information rather than informing others. Furthermore, the use and understanding of the Intranet differs between end-users, managers and IS staff, according to trust and ideas of responsibilities. Finally, important aspects to be considered when investigating the use of Intranets in further research are identified. These aspects are strategies, social context, further development processes, competence and the Intranets' organizational affiliation as well as the culture of the organization.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Organisational Transformation & Social ChangeSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207