MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042121686 · doi:10.1002/meet.14504201181

Modeling the information behaviour of software engineers using a work ‐ task framework

2005· article· en· W2042121686 on OpenAlexafffund
Luanne Freund, Elaine G. Toms, Julie Waterhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTask (project management)Work (physics)Computer scienceProcess (computing)SoftwareInformation systemOrder (exchange)Knowledge managementEngineering managementEngineeringSystems engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Faced with the rapid proliferation of digital information resources within organizations, employees need targeted search systems in order to be effective in their jobs. The goal of this study is to develop a model of information behaviour within a work‐task framework that can be used to inform the design of a workplace information search system. In a two‐phase process, we conducted a series of studies using multiple methods to identify workplace characteristics and to understand how they influence the needs, search strategies, and information sources used by software engineers working as services consultants in a large high‐tech company.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207