MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324137299 · doi:10.1177/0002764214556811

Networked Work and Network Research

2015· article· en· W2324137299 on OpenAlexafffund
Dimitrina Dimitrova, Barry Wellman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersUniversity of TorontoEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsWork (physics)Data scienceSociologyComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been more hype than evidence about networked work. The researchers in the two parts of this double issue issue use survey, interview, and sensor data to present systematic evidence about how networked work actually works. The first part of the issue (April) presents four articles about how professionals network. The second part of the issue (May) focuses on a particular kind of networked work—scholarly networks—including studies of how such networks change over time. Taken together, these articles show that workers tend to network with similar others. Although they integrate digital media into their work lives, they nevertheless tend to work with nearby colleagues.

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 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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Behavioral ScientistSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207