MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103599491 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13503

You've Got Mail, But Is It Important And/Or Urgent?: An Investigation into Employees' Perceptions of Email

2019· dissertation· en· W3103599491 on OpenAlexaff
Andre Lanctot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderSocial mediaEmic and eticContext (archaeology)PsychologyInternet privacyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceKnowledge managementSocial psychologyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis presents three papers linked together by their investigation into two social/psychological predictors of email use: the end user's assessment regarding the importance and urgency of the email. The first paper presents a study designed to help us better understand the cues employees use to identify the two constructs of interest: important email and urgent email. The research takes an emic perspective and uses a qualitative research methodology. The study makes three significant contributions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207