MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098677559

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED.

2008· article· en· W7098677559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaptopWearable computerTechnicianField (mathematics)Process (computing)Wearable technology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2002 Bell Canada’s Wired and Wireless Center 1 (WCC) conducted a field trial implementation of Panasonic’s latest wearable computer, the CF-07. This pilot was part of Bell’s larger wearable computing initiative that had as a motto the creation of a ‘mobile, wireless and wearable ’ workforce. From the WWC’s perspective this pilot was a fairly straightforward procedure. It involved a mere ‘technological replacement’—from the old laptop to a new wearable. For Bell managers, this was a minor change, a change in form not function, since the functionality of the previous laptop computing device had remained the same. Technicians were simply being given a more appropriate tool to perform their jobs. However, as this paper will demonstrate, the process was far more complicated. It involved the transformation of a stable network of identities, that of Bell’s field technicians into a new hybrid entity: augmented field technicians. In the course of this project, actors that the WWC had not foreseen turned out to play a major role in the development of the pilot project; the technological artefact did not manage to sustain its identity as a wearable computer; and technicians interpreted the shift to wearable computers as an alteration of the character of the job itself, and thus, of their role within it. This paper highlights the complexity of the attempts to create this ‘new ’ hybrid entity—human and machine, body and computer—and argues that part of this complexity derives from the fact that it presupposes a change in the entity’s reality and identity. A technician equipped with a wearable computer, that shares his cognitive and personal space, is qualitatively different from that of the ‘field technician’. 1 Throughout this paper pseudonyms will be used to identify departments and individuals within the companies herein mentioned. Ana Viseu – Creating Augmented Technicians 1/27

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5690.451

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory and advancements in chemistry→French-language works237,207→