MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026181941 · doi:10.4018/ijismd.2014100103

Responding to Ongoing Change

2014· article· en· W2026181941 on OpenAlexaff
Alexei Lapouchnian, Eric Yu, Stephanie Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information System Modeling and Design · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNotationComputer scienceProcess managementProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)Business intelligenceManagement scienceSystems engineeringKnowledge managementSoftware engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As modern organizations increasingly need to operate in uncertain and fast-paced business environments, pressures increase on information systems (IS) to support these enterprises in a dynamically changing world. Consequently, systems need to deliver results given incompletely known and constantly changing requirements and contexts and other uncertainties. Their development is no longer a progression from clear and stable requirements to solutions meeting them. Rather, it is a continuous process involving multiple iterations of analysis and exploration, design, and development taking into consideration changing organizational needs, available resources, and feedback from previous iterations. Since current modeling and analysis notations generally assume stable and predictable settings for IS development, this paper explores the difficulties in applying several such techniques for modeling continuously evolving systems in uncertain and rapidly changing socio-technical domains and identifies requirements for a comprehensive modeling notation suitable for these environments. Business intelligence capability implementation in enterprises is used as an illustration.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information System Modeling and DesignSame topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207