MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034467698 · doi:10.4018/irmj.2002100105

The Impact of Expert Decision Support Systems on the Performance of New Employees

2002· article· en· W2034467698 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

VenueInformation Resources Management Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpert systemKnowledge managementDecision support systemTest (biology)Quality (philosophy)Control (management)Decision qualityEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTeam effectiveness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision support technology, expert systems, executives information systems, and artificial neural networks have been reported to be useful tools to enhance the performance of managers as they helped them to gain more knowledge, experiences, and expertise and consequently enhance the quality of the decision making. They can also be used as a training tool to transfer the knowledge of the expert to middle and top management and thus improve the performance of new employees. This communication reports the conclusions of a study conducted to verify the impact of the use of the EDSS technology (expert decision support systems) on the performance and satisfaction of new employees in the business world. A laboratory experiment using the control groups and the treatment groups was held to test the research model. The results indicate that EDSS technologies do have a positive impact on the performance of the users.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.228 · 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