MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034284484 · doi:10.3166/jds.19.201-223

Using Classification Trees to Predict Performance in Information Technology Projects

2010· article· en· W2034284484 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Decision System · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDecision treeArtificial neural networkMachine learningBinary classificationArtificial intelligenceData miningSet (abstract data type)Tree (set theory)RegressionDecision tree learningSupport vector machineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification trees are introduced as a modeling technique to predict IT project performance. A comparative analysis of classification tree, regression and neural network techniques provides promising evidence that classification trees can provide more actionable output for project decisions. The relative accuracy from classification trees, vis-à-vis regression and neural network techniques is demonstrated using a data set of 440 projects including 8 performance factors and a binary dependent variable of performance. Results suggest classification tree techniques provide comparable, and possibly superior, predictive capabilities. We conclude that a performance assessment based on classification trees could provide an effective decision tool for managing IT project performance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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