MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170180570 · doi:10.1109/icmb.2009.9

Mobile Task Characteristics and the Needs for Mobile Work Support: A Comparison between Mobile Knowledge Workers and Field Workers

2009· article· en· W2170180570 on OpenAlexaff
Yufei Yuan, Wuping Zheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile business developmentMobile computingMobile technologyComputer scienceMobile WebWork (physics)Mobile paymentMobile deviceMobile telephonyMobile stationTask (project management)Field (mathematics)Human–computer interactionMultimediaMobile radioTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of wireless communication and portable devices in recent years has created a great potential of providing mobile work support for mobile workers. However not all mobile tasks require or can benefit from the use of mobile work support. In order to identify appropriate mobile technologies for various kinds of mobile work supports, we need to fully understand the nature of mobile work and the needs for mobile work support. In this paper we develop a theoretical framework and conduct an empirical study to compare the two types of mobile workers: mobile knowledge workers and field workers. This study will help us to assess the needs of mobile work support for different types of mobile workers.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207