MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045626783 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.488

Project Complexity and Knowledge Transfer in Global Software Outsourcing Project Teams: A Transactive Memory Systems Perspective

2012· article· en· W2045626783 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Qu, Shaobo Ji, Aaron Luntala Nsakanda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransactive memoryKnowledge managementFacilitatorOutsourcingKnowledge transferComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Structural equation modelingKnowledge sharingProcess managementBusinessPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents results based on a study that examined the relationship between transactive memory systems (TMS) and knowledge transfer performance (KTP) in the context of global software outsourcing project teams. Based on a cross sectional sample of 107 project managers and using structural equation modeling method, the study verifies the moderating effect of project complexity on the relationship between TMS and KTP. It is concluded that TMS is an important facilitator to KTP and project complexity, as a moderating factor, plays an important role in specialization on team knowledge transfer.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207