MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W645619538 · doi:10.4337/9781848440241

Growing the Virtual Workplace: The Integrative Value Proposition for Telework

2008· book· en· W645619538 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Verbeke, Robert Schulz, Nathan Greidanus, Laura Hambley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommutingStakeholderBusinessKnowledge managementValue propositionPublic relationsMarketingEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employees, organizations and society alike should grow the virtual workplace, the authors argue, as the multiple, tangible benefits of telework for each of these three stakeholders largely outweigh the costs. To help stakeholders benefit from the virtual workplace they analyze four key issues: telework adoption, implementation, tracking and impacts. The authors develop the comprehensive EOS framework to examine both the interaction among employees, organizations and society, and the linkages among telework impacts, tracking, implementation and adoption.Unique features of the book include an integrative framework for increasing telework adoption; practical tips - specific to each stakeholder - on how best to implement and measure telework; and an analysis of original survey data exploring the virtual workplace adoption decision. Readership for this book includes academic experts on telecommuting, policymakers involved in transportation, human resource or environmental policies, and managers and employees considering telework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207