Eyes, ears and technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of video‐conferencing as a suitable technology for business process reengineering (BPR) training of 12 health sector participants located in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Design/methodology/approach An action research was adopted. The participants received training from a remote BPR consultant located in Northern Ireland (UK), with the assistance of local moderators. The focus of the study is concerned with the quality of the learning experience and the important role played by local moderators. Findings Overall, the use of video‐conferencing technology provided a valuable learning experience. It was also cost effective and an efficient use of both the consultant's and the participants' time. A key part of the success of the exercise was the role of one of the local moderators who acted as the “eyes and ears” of the consultant. Originality/value A general contribution to knowledge is the positioning of the argument developed within the technology diffusion literature. The paper offers important insights into the effective use of video‐conferencing technology for BPR training purposes; and Knipe and Lee's evaluation of a video‐conferencing experiment in terms of the relationship between the human actors at the remote and local sites is discussed and extended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".