MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W198748625

Information Technology Training for a Globalized Workforce – Challenges, Tools and Research Directions

2010· article· en· W198748625 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceTraining (meteorology)Knowledge managementInformation technologyComputer scienceEngineering managementData scienceEngineeringEconomic growthEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IT training research is one of the dominant themes in IS research for the past two decades and has provided a rich knowledge base of tools and techniques to impart IT training to employees (Compeau et al. 1995; Sharma and Yetton 2007). IT training is a critical enabler of information system acceptance and use, because employees who undergo training have higher positive attitudes than those who do not (Cooper and Zmud 1990, Xia and Lee 2000). But conducting business in a global workspace has created additional challenges for IT training professionals and organizational consultants. Training service firms with names such as “Global Computer Education,” “International Training Services,” Training for a Global World,” are becoming quite commonplace. Business Information systems, instead of being simple one-user systems, have become complex, large, integrated systems used by many different employees and require more learning and coordination efforts on the part of employees (Gattiker and Goodhue 2005, Santhanam et al. 2007, Sharma and Yetton 2007). Hence, new training methods such as virtual training, situational learning, and behavior modeling are being researched to support employee learning and expand upon the traditional face-to-face lecture based training (Alavi and Leidner 2001, Yi and Davis 2003, Gallivan et al. 2005, Santhanam et al. 2008). IT support staff also have to play a critical role as trainers as they support employees’ learning process long after training programs are completed (Haggerty and Compeau 2002, Pawlowski and Robey 2004). IT staff/trainers can learn from these research findings that could help them better manage training on new information technologies and cope with training employees in a global workspace.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.265 · 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