MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319906952 · doi:10.1177/154193120605000362

The Srk Inventory: A Tool for Structuring and Capturing a Worker Competencies Analysis

2006· article· en· W2319906952 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Kilgore, Olivier St-Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Work (physics)Taxonomy (biology)Knowledge managementResource (disambiguation)Process managementManagement scienceEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worker Competencies Analysis (WCA) is the fifth and final phase of the Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) framework. Unlike the earlier four phases, there is a dearth of published work illustrating how WCA is conducted within the context of CWA. The lack of concrete examples of the application of WCA has both practical and pedagogical ramifications, making it difficult to perform and understand this phase of analysis. This paper attempts to address this gap. Following a review of the CWA framework, WCA is introduced with the Skill, Rules, and Knowledge (SRK) taxonomy. Then, a methodological tool for structuring and capturing the execution of WCA—the SRK Inventory—is presented. Finally, a practical application of the SRK Inventory to a TRACON microworld is discussed. This paper is intended to serve as a resource to future CWA practitioners and researchers, and to stimulate discussion of methods and tools for better supporting WCA activities.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0180.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207