MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125188118

USER ACCEPTANCE OF TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SYSTEMS WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION

2004· article· en· W2125188118 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

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)WorkflowComputer scienceService (business)Affect (linguistics)Engineering managementKnowledge managementHigher educationProcess managementEngineeringBusinessPsychologyMarketingSystems engineeringPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Universities are dependent upon their administrative support systems to enable them to service students, applicants, faculty and university administrators. Support systems have increasingly become an integral part of the day-to-day workflow. Task-technology fit defines a comprehensive model that validates that for a technology to be utilized it must meet the individual and task needs of a user. When the technology meets the users’ needs and provides features that support the tasks that are being performed, then performance impacts will result. This study extends the task-technology fit research to evaluate the fit of administrative support systems in a university environment and to assess the individual and task characteristics that affect system usage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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 head0.436
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.139 · 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