MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7072281326

Why competence in teleworking matters

2020· dissertation· en· W7072281326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Context (archaeology)Empirical researchEmpirical evidenceQualitative researchOrder (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teleworking (also referred to as remote working) is currently rising in popularity, and based on the recent COVID-19 pandemic this trend appears likely to continue. The existing theoretical literature on teleworking indicates the importance of taking the context of teleworking into consideration. One context that has received little attention in the literature is consulting engineering firms. While teleworking theory does cover knowledge-intensive firms and consulting firms in general, minimal studies specifically address consulting engineering. This research project aims to fill that gap by answering the following research question: \n\nHow is the practice of teleworking in consulting engineering firms influenced by conditions on the job, individual, organizational, and environmental and societal levels?\n\nA qualitative case study is conducted that includes two consulting engineering firms located in the Greater Toronto Area region of Canada. One is a small firm that purely teleworks, whereas the other is a medium-sized firm that infrequently teleworked prior to COVID-19, but transitioned to full-time teleworking during COVID-19 which is captured in the empirical data. A total of seven employees are interviewed in depth, in positions ranging from junior engineers to presidents, in order to obtain a holistic view of the teleworking practices in these firms. This research project primarily uses an inductive approach by generating theory based on the empirical data and then comparing it to the existing theoretical literature. A theoretical framework is developed that divides teleworking into four levels that structure the overall analysis and discussion: the job level, the individual level, the organizational level, and the environmental and societal level. A few key concepts within each level are examined by comparing the findings from the empirical data with existing literature. \n\nThe research reveals two main findings. First, consulting engineering firms do not appear to experience any significantly unique challenges in regards to teleworking. Secondly, teleworking literature appears to have surprisingly neglected emphasizing the importance of teleworking as a competence. This research showcases that teleworking competence influences the outcomes of teleworking at all four levels of the theoretical framework.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207