MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194075876 · doi:10.3233/jid-210011

Implementation Barriers: A TASKS Framework

2021· article· en· W3194075876 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Design and Process Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesConcordia UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTask (project management)Computer scienceIdentification (biology)Relation (database)Knowledge managementHuman–computer interactionProcess managementEngineeringSystems engineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementation is ubiquitous. The identification of barriers to implementation is critical for achieving implementation success. This paper introduces and discusses a deductive theory-based framework, TASKS, to guide the identification of implementation barriers. The TASKS framework deals with the relationships between a Task and the task implementer’s Affect, Skills, and Knowledge, based on the inversed U-shaped mental Stress-mental effort relation. The TASKS framework classifies implementation barriers into four categories: 1) emotion barriers, 2) logic barriers, 3) knowledge barriers, and 4) resources barriers. The TASKS framework detects barriers to implementation following three steps, 1) identifying the ideal TASKS components, 2) modelling the implementer's mental capability, and 3) detecting barriers to implementation. The TASKS framework can be applied to a wide range of disciplines for effective and efficient task implementation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.327 · 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