MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137583230 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.650

Introduction to the Documenting Work and Working Documents Minitrack

2012· article· en· W2137583230 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Crowston, Carsten Østerlund

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWork (physics)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge and coordination work is hard to observe. A focus on the more tangible aspects of this work, namely documents, provides a useful lens into the work practices of organizational members in general, and those working in distributed and virtual teams in particular. Studying documents in work allows us to position people’s immediate activities and situated routines in their larger social and organizational context. As documents carry institutional structures and point to both past and future activities they open a window to larger organizational practices. We define documents as typified and material communication, whether electronic, paper-based, wallmounted or set in stone, created or used in response to recurrent situations. The notion of document serves as a lens into the socio-technical or socio-material nature of what organizational members do day in and day out. Documents are socio-technical in that they are both material—and, thus, embody the technical infrastructure—and social—as they embody both the work practices and shared understanding of those involved. For example, our production and distribution of the document in front of you involved the technology of word processors, several different computers, hard copies, email messages and PDF files. Your reading of this mini-track introduction likely involves numerous other technologies; you may be reading a paper version of this introduction, part of the conference packet, or you might have stumbled over it among many other mini-track introductions on the HICSS-45 website or in the IEEE paper repository. Shared social practices are reflected in the degree to which you, the reader, and we, the authors, understand and share common knowledge about the form and contents of the genre of conferences in general and HICSS mini-track introductions in particular and reflect this knowledge in this document. The work we have done and that you are doing represents the basics of the work practices. And, the various material forms of the proposal represent some of the infrastructure supporting these HICSS and the broader information field. In short, the production and consumption of this introduction involves both the work of documenting and document work. The work of documenting falls close to the definition of the verb, to “document,” describing the act of providing factual or substantive support for statements made or hypotheses proposed; or to equip with exact references to authoritative supporting information (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). At the same time we engaged in document work involving the production, use, collection, classification, storage, retrieving and dissemination of documents within and across organizational settings. The four papers in this track demonstrate a document perspective’s usefulness in a variety of ways. Isto Huvila studies the assignation of authors to documents and develops a category system distinguishing four types of attribution: solitary, emergent authorship, light-weight, and heavy-weight peer-production. The paper offers insights relevant to authorship in crowdsourcing and beyond. Alberto Pepe and Matthew Mayernik explore how microblogging can support the collection, ingestion, and publication of contextual information about digital artifacts produced in field research. The authors present their design and pilot evaluation of a microblogging application integrated with an existing data collection platform on a handheld device. Grace Eden and Marina Jirotka discuss the evolving use of digital images within medieval musicology and their transformative effects on research processes. The durability of digital documents enables detailed manipulations of medieval manuscripts that would destroy the original documents Alain Ross and Chad Saunders explore the relevance of institutional ethnography for information systems research by examining documents from two studies focusing on 1) clinical information systems in a large Canadian healthcare organization and 2) the Intellectual Property Group of a large law firm. The papers represent an emerging literature converging old and new approaches to document production and information sharing. Such work follows up work presented in prior HICSS tracks on the genre of digital documents that has found a home in the digital media track since the mid-90s. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.044

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207