Using Electronic Media for Information Sharing Activities: A Replication and Extension
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports a replication and extension of a study that explored individual perceptions of factors that underlie the use of electronic media (electronic mail, world-wide-web, list serves, and other collaborative systems). The original study was conducted in a single Australian university. The study was replicated in a Canadian university. The replication allowed testing of the enlarged research model that involves organizational culture variables as well as attitudes toward information policies. Overall, the expanded research model includes culture variables, task and technology related variables, as well as individual attitudes and beliefs. We found that task and technology related variables explained more of the use of electronic media for sharing than culture related variables or the individual attitudes and beliefs. Specifically, task interdependence, perceived information usefulness and the userâs computer comfort were most strongly associated with the personâs use of electronic media. Two dimensions, employee orientation and need for achievement, of organizational culture had a significant influence on the use of electronic media for information sharing activities although less strongly than the task and technology related variables. Of the individual attitudes and beliefs, attitudes about information policies had a significant influence on the use of electronic media for information sharing activities. Besides the value of replication of a research model in another culture, the study contributed to the information systems literature by developing initial scales for two new constructs: attitudes about information policies and information culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it