Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports one part of a field study conducted in a large grocery distribution warehouse in Ottawa, Canada. It focuses on the ability of employees at the warehouse to share knowledge with each other. Data were collected in interviews with a sample of the warehouse management, supervisors, and workers fulfilling different work roles. The interviews were followed by observations of three kinds of workers, namely the so-called receivers, assemblers, and loaders. Receivers' job was to empty incoming trucks delivering products to the warehouse from a variety of suppliers and areas and then to place the products on their respective 'home' shelves. Assemblers were picking and shrinkwrapping products ordered by individual supermarkets, and the loaders placed completed orders on trucks delivering the products to supermarkets. A socio-technical framework was applied to the data, which showed that the management philosophy was quite inconsistent with how the work was actually done. In addition, several of the socio-technical principles were violated. These included exerting strict control on some, but not all, workers' performance, failing to allow workers to become multi-skilled by over-specifying their jobs. In addition, management failed to provide social support or adhere to generic human values in concert with socio-technical theory and philosophy. The data therefore revealed a very negative social work climate, but they also showed that several issues identified as serious impediments to knowledge-sharing were rectifiable with comparatively little effort. Surprisingly, management agreed to introduce some of our recommendations, but the management changed shortly after completion of the project. As a consequence, none of the recommendations were implemented.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".