MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125267202 · doi:10.7202/050519ar

Office Automation: A Review of the Litterature

2005· review· en· W3125267202 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationPessimismOffice automationKey (lock)Quality (philosophy)State (computer science)BusinessEngineering managementOperations managementEngineeringOperations researchMarketingComputer sciencePolitical scienceComputer securityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of new technologies on clerical workers has been intensely debated. This paper assesses current research on the key issues of employment, skill and quality of working life, drawing implications for Canadian clérical workers. The author argues that a reliance on deterministic research models has produced unduly pessimistic forecasts about the impact of new office technologies. Research which is sensitive to the mediated nature of automation is necessary for improving forecasts for the Canadian office. So too is the consideration of employer, union and state activity in influencing automation outcomes.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.289 · 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