Differentiating Higher and Lower Job Performers in the Workplace Using Mobile Sensing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing performance in the workplace typically relies on subjective evaluations, such as, peer ratings, supervisor ratings and self assessments, which are manual, burdensome and potentially biased. We use objective mobile sensing data from phones, wearables and beacons to study workplace performance and offer new insights into behavioral patterns that distinguish higher and lower performers when considering roles in companies (i.e., supervisors and non-supervisors) and different types of companies (i.e., high tech and consultancy). We present initial results from an ongoing year-long study of N=554 information workers collected over a period ranging from 2-8.5 months. We train a gradient boosting classifier that can classify workers as higher or lower performers with AUROC of 0.83. Our work opens the way to new forms of passive objective assessment and feedback to workers to potentially provide week by week or quarter by quarter guidance in the workplace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it