Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the “office continuum” to the Information Science (IS) field. The “office continuum” is an original conception that situates various spaces wherein individuals’ professional and non-professional information practices occur, and it highlights significant gaps in the current canon of information-behaviour research. One small-scale study centred upon professional home offices, neglected spaces along the “continuum,” is described in order to illustrate the concept’s application.Cette communication introduit le « continuum du bureau » au domaine des sciences de l’information. Le « continuum du bureau » est un concept original qui situe différents espaces dans lesquels se déroulent les pratiques informationnelles professionnelles et non professionnelles d’une personne, et met en lumière des écarts important dans le paradigme actuel de la recherche des comportements informationnels. Une petite étude centrée sur le bureau à domicile de professionnels, espace négligé dans le « continuum », illustre l’application du concept.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".