MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602338122 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.682

Linking User Age and Stress in the Interruption Era: The Role of Computer Experience

2017· article· en· W2602338122 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Tams

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTechnostressAffect (linguistics)WorkforcePsychologyComputer scienceInternet privacyApplied psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The workforce is rapidly growing older; especially the number of older workers (60 years and over) is increasing sharply. At the same time, the number of interruptions mediated by modern information technologies is growing rapidly. These interruptions include, for example, instant messages and email notifications. Recent research has shown that interruptions have harmful consequences for workers as they can lead to stress. Interruptions might be especially problematic for older workers, implying severe problems for this fast-growing group of users regarding their well-being and performance at work. This study proposes that older workers perceive more interruption-based technostress than their younger counterparts because of differences in computer experience between older and younger individuals. Thus, the study answers recent calls for exploring users’ age as a substantive variable in IS research, and it also contributes to the literature on technostress by demonstrating how technostress might affect certain groups of users more than others.

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)0.002
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSame topicTechnostress in Professional SettingsFrench-language works237,207