Access Mode: Inter-personalizing Communication at the workplace [Exhibition Catalogue]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collaborative nature of open-plan workplace invites visual, acoustic distractions, digital and social interruptions that inhibits the ability to focus. These distractions can have a direct or indirect impact on individual emotional well-being, work performance, social interactions and in turn organization outcomes. \nTwo leading Tech organizations in Toronto, Canada were approached to study the interpersonal communication within open-plan workplace using mixed methods such as survey, observations, and semi-structured interviews with managers and employees. \n The research explores the question: How can the workplace be better prepared and designed to support the worker of the future with Emotional Intelligence(EI) and Inclusive approaches for performance and effective interpersonal communication? A design prototype is offered as a tool to mitigate the challenges faced by harnessing better interpersonal communication in the open-plan workplace. \nKeywords: Open-Plan Distractions, Social Interruptions, Social Cues, Emotional Well-Being, Interpersonal Communication, Emotional Intelligence, Inclusive Design, Diverse Workforce
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.250 | 0.047 |
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".