MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317440778 · doi:10.1177/154193120104500419

A Field Study of Collaborative Work in Network Management: Implications for Interface Design

2001· article· en· W2317440778 on OpenAlexaff
Renée Chow, Kim J. Vicente

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Interface (matter)Field (mathematics)Network managementComputer scienceKnowledge managementCollaborative networkNetworking hardwareProcess managementBusinessEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To inform the design of interfaces in real-time network management, a field study of telecommunication engineers was conducted at a corporate network operating centre. Eighty hours of direct observations, spanning ten different shifts, were carried out. This study focused on the nature of collaboration between network managers and stakeholders who were internal and external to their organization, how they communicated with one another, and how network managers distributed responsibilities and information. The characteristics of network management, and thus the collaboration, differ substantially in some ways from other complex work domains. This work helped to identify novel opportunities for enhancing and redesigning current interfaces to provide better support for communication and coordination in network operating environments.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207