MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

9.4 The Role of Configuration Management in Earned Value Management

2000· article· en· W1516256794 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleEarned value managementUnificationContext (archaeology)Control (management)Computer scienceCost controlProject managementConsumption (sociology)Operations researchConfiguration Management (ITSM)Project management triangleOperations managementProcess managementBusinessSystems engineeringEngineeringProject charterOperating systemArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Project control is a delicate, interactive balancing act involving cumulative cost, consumption of time (schedule execution), and evolution of performance. Cost is reported to the project manager through finance; schedule status is reported through the operating departments; and performance is reported through systems engineering. Absent some unifying structure, these three essential elements of project control proceed asynchronously, independently of each other, and thus can be said to be time‐incoherent. Configuration management provides the needed unification. It gives context to accomplishment; substantiates products, and reconciles cost, schedule, and content. That is what this paper is about.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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