MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978787485 · doi:10.4018/jcec.2007100103

Electronic Invoice Presentment and Payment

2007· article· en· W1978787485 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cases on Electronic Commerce · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvoiceBusinessPaymentCompetition (biology)MarketingService (business)Payment systemPayment service providerCommerceAccountingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study describes marketing options, systems architecture, and strategies for an IT company to enter the market for B2B EIPP (business-to-business electronic invoice presentment and payment). The organization explores the possibility of developing EIPP software and offering an EIPP service in competition with other EIPP services. The advantages of EIPP to potential customers and to the organization itself are described together with the option of partnering with a bank to offer the service.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cases on Electronic CommerceSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207