MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083482114 · doi:10.1002/job.146

So, how do people really use their handheld devices? An interactive study of wireless technology use

2002· article· en· W2083482114 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 Organizational Behavior · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiquetteMobile deviceContext (archaeology)PsychologyIdentity (music)WirelessMobile technologySocial psychologyInternet privacyKnowledge managementSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebTelecommunicationsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using a symbolic interactionist methodology, the diverse meanings assigned by employees to wireless handheld technology are investigated. Interviews were conducted with 11 individuals representing three organizations in the public and private sector enhancing our understanding of technology use within an organizational context. Wireless technology practices are examined as they relate to aspects of self‐identity, that is, the imaged self, the relational self, the integrated self and the isolated self. Individuals were able to fit the technology into their work and personal roles, and at the same time, adjusted these roles to fit new expectations arising from the technology. Innovative ways of using the technology were shaped by individual needs as users adapted their message contexts, social etiquette, self‐impressions, and ways of doing business. A need to self‐regulate emerged with high expectations of availability and the blurring of multiple work and personal roles. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.254 · 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