MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021383537 · doi:10.1177/016555150002600305

Regional business intelligence: the view from Canada

2000· article· en· W2021383537 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pierrette Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité de MontréalAustralian Government
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessPanoramaDisseminationKnowledge managementPublic relationsBusiness intelligenceMarketingPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, as is the case in most industrial countries, business intelligence (BI) has stirred much interest lately. A growing number of organizations, either large or small, nonprofit or government, implement formal BI activities. This paper provides a panorama of trends in BI in Canada. It reports research on environmental scanning, information-seeking behaviour and BI implementation and practice in large organizations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as in the cultural sector. It describes governmental efforts to support disseminating and implementing BI practices especially in SMEs; in particular, the Québec Government’s Fonds de Partenariat Sectoriel Volet IV: Veilles Concurrentielles, a unique and innovative governmental programme which sponsored the development of BI centres. Finally, it provides an overview of current activities in training and research in BI. It concludes by indicating areas for improvement and development, with an emphasis on the need to develop a better understanding of information-seeking behaviour in SMEs and to develop an information model of organizations specific to SMEs.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0180.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations35
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information ScienceSame topicCompetitive and Knowledge IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207