MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098181699 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2000.926954

Working the Web: an empirical model of Web use

2005· article· en· W2098181699 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceWeb analyticsWeb navigationMode (computer interface)Web browserWeb developmentWork (physics)Tracking (education)Web designWeb pageWeb intelligenceThe InternetHuman–computer interactionPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates how knowledge workers utilize the Web to seek external information as part of their daily work. Thirty four participants from seven companies were interviewed about their information needs and preferences. In addition, a custom-developed software application recorded each participant's Web behavior for a two week monitoring period. To understand better the significant episodes of activity identified in the Web tracking logs, a second round of personal interviews was conducted. The study found that people who use the Web as part of their work engage in four complementary modes of undirected viewing, conditioned viewing, informal search, and formal search. Moreover, each mode is characterized by information seeking moves based on recurrent sequences of browser functions and features. Based on these findings, a model of Web use is presented, as well as some suggestions for supporting and enhancing Web information seeking in organizations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207