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 OpenAlexaff
Elisa Gagnon, Richard V. McCarthy

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207