Technoidentology: Towards An Explication Of Individual Relationships With IS/IT
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
This paper argues that IS theories should not ignore or background the relationship between individuals and technologies in explaining concepts such as adoption, innovation, diffusion, and practice. The relationships that individuals have with technologies should, arguably, be a core interest of IS because of the centrality of people and IT to the discipline. The neglect of individual relationships with IS/IT is surprising given the growth of customisation and personalisation of systems, as well as the increasing prevalence of devices such a smartphones and tablets that blur the boundary between corporate and personal. Other disciplines recognise the importance of relationships in explaining core concepts, for example, the relationship between individuals and brands in marketing, individuals and others in sociology, and individuals and their thoughts in psychology. This paper draws on such work to consider the relationships between individuals and IS/IT, which we refer to as ‘technoidentology’, in examining the immediacy of individuals’ reactions to technology. Having done so, we conclude that theoretical work in the area of personal construct theory and terror management theory is likely to prove fruitful in helping IS researchers address key aspects of technoidentology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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