MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138275955 · doi:10.1109/hicss.1990.205243

Work group knowledge requirements for desktop computing

2002· article· en· W2138275955 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Clement, David Parsons

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGroup (periodic table)Work (physics)Human–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examine the characteristics of the knowledge that office workers require to make effective use of desktop computers, why it is problematic to acquire this knowledge, and ways in which knowledge difficulties are overcome. In an exploratory case study of a high-level secretarial support group successfully using a typical desktop computer configuration, it is found that in spite of considerable experience in computer use and the availability of good external technical support, group members frequently encountered situations where their knowledge was inadequate. They dealt with these persistent knowledge interruptions primarily through an informal collaborative network within the group.>

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207