Personal information management among office support staff in a university environment: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1960s, several studies have investigated personal information management (PIM) in the workplace. However, very few studies have focused on the behaviour of office support staff in a work environment. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the document management behaviour of office support staff in a large Canadian university. The methodological approach used for this study was grounded theory. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted in participants' offices, and visual observations of their document structures were made. A pre-interview survey was also administered in order to gather additional information. Participants were chosen according to the principles of theoretical sampling, and simultaneous data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Transcribed interviews were coded, after which abstract concepts were derived and grouped into categories, using the constant comparison method. A substantive theory was then developed. The findings suggest the existence of several distinct document spaces within workers' document landscape: a main folder, secondary folders, the operating system desktop, e-mail, paper documents and shared environments. Behaviour pertaining to the handling of orphan files and multiple versions, the naming of files and folders as well as searching and browsing were described. Overall, despite several elements in common, significant variation was noted among participants. In order to explain the variation observed, a model of the factors that are likely to influence PIM behaviour was developed. It comprises seven main categories of factors: job content, job status, existing documents, relationship with the superior, worker characteristics, organizational context and document attributes. Several of the factors identified had never been mentioned in the PIM literature, while in other cases, the evidence presented helped confirm previous findings. The proposed model also highlights the inherent complexity of PIM, and the importance of adopting an all-encompassing view when analyzing PIM behaviour.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".