MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037905393 · doi:10.1145/590806.590811

The tail & the dog

2002· article· en· W2037905393 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Chiasson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuration theoryOrganizational structureStructure and agencyAgency (philosophy)Action (physics)Process (computing)BusinessInformation technologyOrganizational cultureSociologyKnowledge managementManagementMarketingPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The organizational structure of a new startup 'venture', including its business strategy, is strongly shaped by processes embedded within its developing e-commerce information system. An important question here and in general IS research is the role of individuals (agents) in the shaping and interpreting of both technological and organizational structures (structure). Various questions drawn from Giddens' (1984) structuration theory are used to highlight this agency-structure relationship, and initial results from an action research study within an e-commerce startup involved in developing an on-line "pop culture" magazine are described. Results indicate that at the outset, the e-commerce technology was shaped by two opposing groups within the organization, focused on the business-to-consumer market. Once the system was completed, however, the various agents perceived tremendous business-to-business possibilities in the software. Consequently, they initiated a process to alter their strategic focus, and transformed their organizational processes. Future research directions of this "dog wagging its tail," and "tail wagging the dog" story toward systems development practice and research, and Giddens' structuration theory are discussed. Implications for e-commerce practice and research are discussed.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.010
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information SystemsSame topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207