MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975690628 · doi:10.1002/pmj.20249

Structuring of Temporary Multi-Organizations: Contingency Theory in the Building Sector

2011· article· en· W1975690628 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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringContingencyContingency theoryProcurementKnowledge managementBusinessWork (physics)InterdependenceOrganizational structureProcess managementOrganizational theoryComputer scienceEngineeringManagementSociologyMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The appropriate management of construction projects presupposes a clear comprehension of the structure of the temporary multi-organization (TMO); however, most of the work on the structuring of TMOs has concentrated either on procurement strategies or the structure of individual organizations. Current approaches, therefore, do not fully consider the roles of all project stakeholders, the informal communications, and the complexity of the client organization. Instead, we argue that the contingency theory contributes to the understanding of the structuring of TMOs. The analysis of 27 recent construction projects allows us to identify two contingency factors and patterns of configuration of the TMO.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.212 · 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