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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Few scholars have been cited as frequently as Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott for their contributions to project success and related critical success factors (CSF) in the 1980s. Studies since then built on their articles to broaden and refine our understanding of the topic. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the reasons for the impact of these seminal contributions and how the topic of project success continues to evolve. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses the popularity of Pinto and his colleagues' contributions to project success and reviews the development of this field of research since then. Findings Project success remains a vibrant school of thought as do the earlier definitions, measurement scales and dimensions, and assessment techniques that Pinto and his colleagues developed. The authors view success more broadly and think of it strategically because they consider longer‐term business objectives. Some research is now based on managerial or organizational theories and reflects the multi‐dimensional and networked nature of project success. Practical implications Practically, the classic contributions in project success continue to be valid. The authors see diversity in how success is defined and measured. The CSFs vary by project types, life cycle phases, industries, nationalities, individuals, and organizations. Originality/value The paper relates earlier understandings of project success to subsequent research in the field and underscores the significant findings by Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it