Maintenir sa concentration et gérer ses conversations téléphoniques en espace de travail ouvert : le cas du coworking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cette étude exploratoire et descriptive est d’examiner, dans le cas du coworking , comment des personnes travaillant en espace ouvert évaluent leur concentration, quels facteurs la favorisent, et quelles stratégies elles déploient pour la maintenir et pour gérer leurs conversations téléphoniques malgré la réduction d’intimité sonore et visuelle. La méthode repose sur une observation systématique, une auto-évaluation et un entretien semi-directif. Les résultats montrent que la concentration a été perçue positivement grâce à des facteurs relatifs aux conditions et à l’environnement du travail, et grâce à des stratégies d’occupation. Ils montrent ensuite que la localisation des conversations téléphoniques est choisie selon leur prévisibilité, leur durée et leur confidentialité. En plus de contribuer à la littérature sur les espaces de coworking , l’étude propose plusieurs pistes d’amélioration pour les concevoir, les aménager et les animer. The aim of this exploratory and descriptive study is to examine, in the context of coworking, how individuals working in an open space evaluate their concentration, what factors enhance it, and what strategies they employ to maintain it and manage their telephone conversations despite the reduction in aural and visual privacy. The method is based on systematic observation, self-evaluation and a semi-structured interview. The results show that concentration was positively perceived thanks to factors relating to work conditions and environment, and thanks to occupation strategies. They then show that the location of telephone conversations is chosen according to their predictability, duration and confidentiality. In addition to contributing to the literature on coworking spaces, the study proposes several avenues for improvement in their design, layout and animation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".