MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916065288 · doi:10.2308/isys-51297

A Method to Evaluate Information Systems Control Alignment

2015· article· en· W1916065288 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

VenueJournal of Information Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationComplementarity (molecular biology)AuditComputer scienceOrganizational structureControl (management)BureaucracyRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementProcess (computing)Knowledge managementBusinessAccountingManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Advocated by auditors and regulators, information systems (IS) controls can mitigate risk and improve performance. But controls can just as easily lead to problems, slowing processes with unnecessary bureaucracy or overwhelming checks and balances. Managers can avoid these problems by understanding how to design and implement IS controls that align with important factors within the settings that they operate, such as organizational structure, staff expectations, and technical innovations. We address this challenge by operationalizing a method to evaluate control alignment within IS processes. The results can aid in determining the degree of complementarity between IS controls, organizational, staff, and process characteristics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.019
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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