MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285109023 · doi:10.1017/dsj.2022.12

Communication patterns in engineering enterprise social networks: an exploratory analysis using short text topic modelling

2022· article· en· W4285109023 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

VenueDesign Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSocial network analysisSet (abstract data type)Knowledge managementNew product developmentSocial network (sociolinguistics)Exploratory researchData scienceProduct (mathematics)Process (computing)Product designSocial mediaWorld Wide WebManagementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Enterprise social network messaging sites are becoming increasingly popular for team communication in engineering and product design. These digital communication platforms capture detailed messages between members of the design team and are an appealing data set for researchers who seek to better understand communication in design. This exploratory study investigates whether we can use enterprise social network messages to model communication patterns throughout the product design process. We apply short text topic modelling (STTM) to a data set comprising 250,000 messages sent by 32 teams enrolled in a 3-month intensive product design course. Many researchers describe the engineering design process as a series of convergent and divergent thinking stages, such as the popular double diamond model, and we use this theory as a case study in this work. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of STTM results reveals several trends, such as it is indeed possible to see evidence of cyclical convergence and divergence of topics in team communication; within the convergence–divergence pattern, strong teams have fewer topics in their topic models than weaker teams; and teams show characteristics of product, project, course, and other themes within each topic. We provide evidence that the analysis of enterprise social networking messages, with advanced topic modelling techniques, can uncover insights into design processes and can identify the communication patterns of successful teams.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.222 · 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