MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391880278 · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2024.2313537

Digital Desire Paths: Exploring the Role of Computer Workarounds in Emergent Information Systems Design

2024· article· en· W4391880278 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Information Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkaroundSoft systems methodologyInformation systemComputer scienceSystems designProcess (computing)Strategic information systemManagement information systemsKnowledge managementSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The information systems literature generally conceptualises information system (IS) workarounds as negative disturbances that need to be avoided. IS design literature has emphasised the need to incorporate user behaviour in emergent IS design. Surprisingly, information systems research has kept the literatures on workarounds and IS design separate and remains silent on how workaround behaviour can inform information system design. In this research, we explore six workarounds in two case organisations and analyse the connections between them. We develop the concept of digital desire paths to describe the process how information system designers improve the system design by observing how users use and work around the system. Digital desire paths offer a novel interpretation of workarounds as input for information systems design and thereby serve as instance of the principle of guided emergence in action design research.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.015
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.220 · 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