MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062646142 · doi:10.1089/109493102760275590

Lost in Cyberspace: The Web @ Work

2002· article· en· W2062646142 on OpenAlexaff
David Greenfield, Richard A. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueCyberPsychology & Behavior · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspaceThe InternetBusinessWork (physics)PornographyAction (physics)Public relationsInternet privacyPolitical scienceEngineeringWorld Wide WebComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most U.S. businesses provide Internet access for their employees. The current study surveyed representatives from 224 organizations on issues related to Internet abuse. Nearly 70% of companies surveyed had more than half of their employees online. Almost all companies had Internet access policies (IAP) in place (82.6%), outlining appropriate and inappropriate use of the Internet in the workplace. Despite IAPs, U.S. businesses are facing a severe problem. More than 60% of companies had disciplined-and more than 30% had terminated--employees for inappropriate use of the Internet. Accessing pornography, online chatting, gaming, investing, or shopping at work were the leading causes for disciplinary action or termination. Many companies were not concerned about the severity of the problem (49.6%) and/or had done very little to enforce their IAPs (59.4% use self or managerial oversight, and only 37.5% use filtering software).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations143
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCyberPsychology & BehaviorSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207