MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050947983 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0195

Suggestions for Improving Initiation of Pipeline Projects

2004· article· en· W2050947983 on OpenAlexaff
Janice Thomas, Travis E. Stripling

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Project managementPipeline (software)StakeholderProcess managementProject management triangleComputer scienceKey (lock)Knowledge managementEngineering managementBusinessEngineeringSystems engineeringComputer securityPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective and successful project management of today’s pipeline projects is a challenging and complex task. For the most part, these complexities are not due to technical issues, but pertain to “soft management issues” (communications, team building/alignment, stakeholder management, etc.) that must be immediately and aggressively addressed during project initiation. That is, a key success factor for these projects is setting up for success, upfront at the very beginning, and ensuring the right resources and processes are in place to manage the “soft side” as the project progresses. This includes initiating continuing processes to check the status of the project team climate, interaction health, and development of a “risk sharing/monitoring” culture.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.018

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207