MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005109531 · doi:10.1177/0018720820904623

The Harder They Fall? A Response to Wickens et al. (2019) Regarding the Generalizability of Lumberjack Predictions to Complex Work Settings

2020· article· en· W3005109531 on OpenAlexafffund
Greg A. Jamieson, Gyrd Skraaning

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryWork (physics)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This article is a response to Wickens et al.'s (2019) critique of Jamieson and Skraaning (2019). BACKGROUND: Wickens et al. (2019) offer a five-point critique of Jamieson and Skraaning (2019) that they claim tempers the strength of our conclusions. APPROACH: We first correct a misrepresentation in the critique and then respond to each of the criticisms. RESULTS: We preserve the strength of our skeptical conclusions about the applicability of the lumberjack model to complex work settings. APPLICATIONS: We continue to caution system designers about the lack of evidence supporting the lumberjack model in the context of complex work systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietySame topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207