Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Oesterlund, C."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Oesterlund, C.; Jarrahi, M.H.; Willis, M.; Boyd, K.; Wolf, C.T.: Artificial intelligence and the world of work : a co-constitutive relationship (2021) 0.01 
    0.010437169 = product of:
  0.020874338 = sum of:
    0.020874338 = product of:
      0.041748676 = sum of:
        0.041748676 = weight(_text_:c in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041748676 = score(doc=5504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 5504, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The use of intelligent machines-digital technologies that feature data-driven forms of customization, learning, and autonomous action-is rapidly growing and will continue to impact many industries and domains. This is consequential for communities of researchers, educators, and practitioners concerned with studying, supporting, and educating information professionals. In the face of new developments in artificial intelligence (AI), the research community faces 3 questions: (a) How is AI becoming part of the world of work? (b) How is the world of work becoming part of AI? and (c) How can the information community help address this topic of Work in the Age of Intelligent Machines (WAIM)? This opinion piece considers these 3 questions by drawing on discussion from an engaging 2019 iConference workshop organized by the NSF supported WAIM research coordination network (note: https://waim.network).
  2. Jarrahi, M.H.; Lutz, C.; Boyd, K.; Oesterlund, C.; Willis, M.: Artificial intelligence in the work context (2023) 0.01 
    0.010437169 = product of:
  0.020874338 = sum of:
    0.020874338 = product of:
      0.041748676 = sum of:
        0.041748676 = weight(_text_:c in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041748676 = score(doc=913,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Oesterlund, C.; Crowston, K.: Documentation and access to knowledge in online communities : know your audience and write appropriately? (2019) 0.01 
    0.008697641 = product of:
  0.017395282 = sum of:
    0.017395282 = product of:
      0.034790564 = sum of:
        0.034790564 = weight(_text_:c in 5253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034790564 = score(doc=5253,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 5253, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Virtual collaborations bring together people who must work together despite having varied access to and understanding of the work at hand. In many cases, the collaborations are technology supported, meaning that the work is done through shared documents. We develop a framework articulating the characteristics of documents supporting collaborators with access to asymmetric knowledge versus those with access to symmetric knowledge. Drawing on theories about document genre, boundary objects, and provenance, we hypothesize that documents supporting asymmetric collaborators are likely to articulate or prescribe their own (a) purpose, (b) context of use, (c) content and form, and (d) provenance in greater detail than documents supporting symmetric collaborators. We explore these hypotheses through content analysis of documents and instructions for documents from a variety of free/libre open-source projects (FLOSS). We present findings consistent with the hypotheses developed as well as results extending beyond our theory-derived assumptions. When participants have access to the same knowledge, the study suggests that prescriptions about the content of documents become less important compared with prescriptions about the context, provenance, and process of work. The study contributes with a dynamic perspective on communicative practices that consider an often-uneven distribution of knowledge in virtual collaborations.

Authors

Years