MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608172162 · doi:10.11575/prism/30203

Through the Looking Glass: Examining Theory Development in Project Management with the Resource-Based View Lens.

2004· article· en· W1608172162 on OpenAlexaff
Kam Jugdev

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)Project managementResource (disambiguation)Development theoryDevelopment (topology)Process managementThrough-the-lens meteringSociologyEngineering ethicsManagement scienceKnowledge managementBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsSystems engineeringEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project management is a young discipline and young disciplines tend to lack well-developed theories. This paper examines several topics that help with theory development – the use of a common termi...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.031
Scholarly communication0.0130.017
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207