MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972123371 · doi:10.5539/ies.v6n6p178

Kacang Cerdik: A Conceptual Design of an Idea Management System

2013· article· en· W1972123371 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Zamri Murah, Zuraidah Abdullah, Rosilah Hassan, Marini Abu Bakar, Ibrahim Mohamed, Hazilah Mohd Amin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowComputer scienceObject (grammar)Process (computing)Workflow management systemTask (project management)Knowledge managementReuseCreativityPipeline (software)Software engineeringWorld Wide WebSystems engineeringDatabaseProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An idea management system is where ideas are stored and then can be evaluated and analyzed. It provides the structure and the platform for users to contribute ideas for innovation and creativity. Designing and developing an idea management system is a complex task because it involves many users and lot of ideas. Some of the critical features for an idea management system are supports for the ideas generation process, stimulate users to actively participate, facilitates reuse of ideas and encourages open collaboration among the users. This paper discusses a conceptual architecture design of an idea management system called Kacang Cerdik based on three novel concepts; actor, object and workflow. In the system, an idea is an object or an entity that can be manipulated by the users. An idea as an object can be used to generate other ideas. It can also derive its features from other ideas. In this system, an idea is linked with other ideas in the system. The idea will flows from one state to another state in a single workflow. A single workflow is a process or a pipeline that consists of many states. At each of the states, an idea (an object) can manipulated by a user (an actor) based on his current role. The single workflow consists of five different states which are editing, collaborating, reviewing, publishing and evaluating. In the system, a user is an actor who has multiple roles such as a submitter, a reviewer or an evaluator. Based on this concept, a user can submit a new idea or can review an existing idea or can vote on an idea. The system also uses the concept of crowd wisdom to evaluate the ideas. Finally, the potentially viable ideas at the end of the workflow or the pipeline can be further evaluated in a new product development cycle. This conceptual design encourages open collaborations among the users, reuse of previous ideas and use of crowd wisdom in ideas evaluation. A working prototype called Kacang Cerdik has been developed using these concepts as a proof-of-concept.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207