MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140900423 · doi:10.1504/ijmc.2007.011492

Identifying the differences between stationary office support and mobile work support: a conceptual framework

2006· article· en· W2140900423 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

VenueInternational Journal of Mobile Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Computer scienceMobile business developmentMobile computingMobile technologyConceptual frameworkContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementMobile telephonyProcess managementMobile WebTelecommunicationsBusinessMobile radioEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid development of mobile technologies provides great potential to support mobile work that was not supported by traditional stationary information systems. To realise this great potential, it is important for us to fully understand the nature of mobile work in order to develop efficient and effective support for mobile workers. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework and use this framework to analyse four fundamental aspects of mobile work: mobile workers, mobile tasks, mobile context and mobile technology. The key differences between office work support and mobile work support are highlighted. The conceptual framework can be used to identify research issues and provide guidelines for the development of effective mobile work support systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.274 · 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