MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163994264 · doi:10.1177/1555343412445577

Team Cognitive Work Analysis

2012· article· en· W2163994264 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Ashoori, Catherine M. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSociotechnical systemTeamworkComputer scienceTask analysisWork (physics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Task (project management)Decision support systemKnowledge managementProcess managementHuman–computer interactionManagement scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today’s complex sociotechnical systems involve more than just single operators and often include rich team interactions. In this article, the authors explore cognitive work analysis (CWA), a method typically used for deriving design requirements to support single operators, and rework this methodology into a version that is intended to show requirements required to support successful team collaboration. Team-suitable approaches are presented for the first two steps of CWA, work domain analysis and control task analysis. These approaches are collected from past attempts to model teams with CWA and two new teamwork visualizations, collaboration tables and decision wheels. The applicability of the extended models is demonstrated with a health care example.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision MakingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207