MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002052444 · doi:10.1142/s0219649203000358

Achieving Organizational Flexibility and Competitive Advantage Through Information Systems Flexibility: A Path Analytic Study

2003· article· en· W2002052444 on OpenAlexaff
Ramaraj Palanisamy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information & Knowledge Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Competitive advantageRespondentKnowledge managementComputer scienceTable (database)Organizational performanceScale (ratio)MarketingBusinessData miningManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an empirical study to examine the relationship between IS flexibility, organizational flexibility, and competitive advantage. The study presumes IS usage and organizational learning as the intermediate variables. The study used a questionnaire survey to obtain responses from IS users. The survey was carried out with 296 user-respondents from 42 organizations across eight industrial sectors. For the purpose of gaining more insight into a variable, its dimensions were considered. These dimensions were evolved from the literature. The qualitative scales for the dimensions were explained with a scale table. The scale table was constructed using fuzzy possibility values. Each respondent used this table as a guideline before responding to each item in the questionnaire. The data analysis validates the relationship between IS flexibility, organizational flexibility, and competitive advantage. The results of path analysis confirmed that organizational flexibility and competitive advantage could be achieved through IS flexibility.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information & Knowledge ManagementSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207