Transparency, openness and privacy among software professionals: discourses and practices surrounding use of the digital calendar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research on the groupware calendar system (GCS) has sought to understand its situated use in workplace contexts, revealing insights around design, culture, and self-understanding. A critical look at how knowledge workers use the GCS, and conceptualize of this use, reveals often overlooked sociotechnical values that figure prominently in workers’ lives. At a time when the public–private entanglement has become top-of-mind, this article adds to research on the GCS and professional subjectivity. It shows how organizational values circulate through use of the GCS and explores how hierarchy is negotiated on it, in part through design. It finds that senior-level workers are afforded opportunities to make their calendars private, while nonsenior workers are met with frustration when doing so. The article draws from a multi-sited ethnography, focusing on interviews with software workers in Canada. Findings suggest that the logistical functions of the GCS shape the affective dimensions related to its 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".