MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759287410 · doi:10.1002/pmj.21521

Does Executive Sponsorship Matter for Realizing Project Management Value?

2015· article· en· W1759287410 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

VenueProject Management Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityValue (mathematics)BusinessProject managementProject stakeholderExecutive summaryPerceptionProject sponsorshipEarned value managementOPM3Project management triangleSenior managementPublic relationsMarketingProcess managementKnowledge managementManagementPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive sponsorship is critical to project success; however, the impact of the sponsorship role on project management value and sustainability is not known. Using correlation analysis we examine survey responses from 91 U.S. executives. Formalizing and providing training on the sponsorship role and responsibilities are both significantly related to senior management's perception of the sustainability of project management value. Unexpectedly, no significant relationship exists between the prevalence of the sponsorship role and project management value outcomes. These results extend our understanding of the importance of the sponsorship role and provide practical guidance for those seeking to improve the sustainability of project management value.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.251 · 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