MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From 9 to 5 to 24/7

2007· book-chapter· en· W2495502218 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtension (predicate logic)Work (physics)Variety (cybernetics)Emerging technologiesComputer scienceEngineeringKnowledge managementMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the use of work-extension technologies such as e-mail, Black-Berry devices, portable computers, and cell phones. After a review of the literature, the chapter presents the usage patterns of these work extension technologies by Canadian knowledge workers and describes how work is being performed in a variety of nonoffice locations outside normal working hours. Our findings with respect to the impact of work extension technology were contradictory. Some technologies were found to lead to an increase in employee workloads and stress, while others were found to have less of an impact. We also discovered that many respondents reported that technology made them more productive and made their work more interesting. After an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of these technologies, the chapter concludes with suggestions of ways in which employers and employees can use them more effectively.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.018

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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