MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116098332 · doi:10.1177/0894439306293819

Which Telework? Defining and Testing a Taxonomy of Technology-Mediated Work at a Distance

2007· article· en· W2116098332 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Computer Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)Variety (cybernetics)TelecommutingWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Key (lock)Telephone surveyKnowledge managementComputer scienceData sciencePublic relationsMarketingBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telework has been the subject of study for longer than a quarter century, yet its causes and consequences are poorly understood. A key reason for this shortcoming is that scholars define and use the concept in many different ways. This article presents a taxonomy of telework, distinguishing among three distinct forms: fixed-site telework, mobile telework, and flexiwork. It then offers a series of research questions about the associations among these three types of telework and a variety of other factors. Using data collected in a national telephone survey of more than 1,200 U.S. computer-using workers, the authors empirically demonstrate that the three types of teleworkers are unique along key dimensions regarding their individual characteristics, organizational and technological contexts, and the impacts on their work.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.266 · 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