MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trends in Technoethics

2010· book-chapter· en· W4255346663 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowFlexibility (engineering)The InternetComputer scienceEmerging technologiesWork (physics)Information technologyTelecommunicationsKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread integration of electronic technologies in contemporary organizations is transforming organizational operations and how people work. This can partly be attributed to the advent of reliable technological infrastructures, increased workflow efficiency, and operational cost savings that can be achieved by utilizing electronic technologies. New electronic technologies allow organizational members to exchange more information in less time and with greater flexibility than possible through traditional means. Electronic technology common to organizations includes, but is not limited to, computer monitoring and filtering systems, surveillance cameras, IM and other chat tools, electronic mail and voicemail, Internet, audio and video conferencing tools, personal data assistants, and mobile devices. Non-work-related use of electronic technologies may include personal use of electronic technologies as well as institutional uses of counter measure electronic technologies to control personal use.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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