MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

2.1.1 Using a Knowledge Management Tool to Improve U.S. EPA's Enterprise Architecture

2003· article· en· W1986323671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ethan McMahon, John J. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSRA International
KeywordsEnterprise architectureKnowledge managementProcess managementMetisComputer scienceBusiness processBusiness process managementAgency (philosophy)Business architectureArchitectureSoftware engineeringBusinessEngineeringDatabaseOperations managementWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Enterprise architecture (EA) is a process for ensuring that an organization's information resources are aligned with its goals and business. EA can be used for several purposes, such as improving business processes that are performed across an organization and integrating information management resources. For EA to achieve its potential, it is important to use an EA tool for housing and analyzing the organization's information. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is using such a knowledge management tool, called the Architecture Repository and Tool (ART), that is based on Metis software from Computas. ART can be used to identify which organizations perform the same business processes and to highlight opportunities for storing commonly used data. This paper illustrates how ART is a knowledge management tool that can reveal an organization's gaps, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINCOSE International SymposiumSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207