Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce the papers comprising a special issue of the journal. The central theme of this special issue is “Projects and organisations: adding rungs to the ladder of understanding project management and its relationship with the organisation”. It is dedicated to research that explores and proposes different avenues to contribute to the development of the field of project management from this perspective of projects and organisations. Design/methodology/approach The Guest Editors solicited academics and collaborators of the Project Management Research Chair at the École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal (ESG UQAM). Following a call for papers, five were selected that underwent a double‐blind peer‐review process. Findings The five selected articles each provide unique perspectives and insights. Viewed as a set, their contributions view projects and organisations from three main perspectives: project management governance issues; management of innovative and IT projects; and processes, practices and tools. The set brings new empirical data, ideas and theoretical frameworks to bear that justify the extension of the current project management paradigm, and suggest that project management be viewed as a critical function of the organisation. Practical implications The set of papers encourages scholars to continue to examine organisational concerns related to project management with the goal of explaining and enhancing important relationships among organisational phenomena and the project management field. Originality/value By bringing this special issue together, the Editor played an important role in adding rungs to the ladder of understanding project management and its relationship with the organisation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".