MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057770204 · doi:10.4018/jitpm.2012070104

Project-to-Organization Matching

2012· article· en· W2057770204 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

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology Project Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject risk managementRisk management planRisk managementIT risk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Competence (human resources)Vulnerability (computing)Process managementProject management triangleBusinessMatching (statistics)Dimension (graph theory)Risk management frameworkProject managementRisk assessmentKnowledge managementContext (archaeology)Computer scienceEngineeringManagementComputer securitySystems engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies show that the capacity of organizations to cope with risk is usually neglected in project risk analysis (see for instance Bannerman, 2008 in the context of software projects). Using single-dimension risk assessment approaches, vulnerability, or conversely competence of the organization, is not taken into account in the decision to or not to undertake a risky project. This paper proposes a two-dimensional multi criteria approach with the aim of providing a more complete risk assessment decision support to project managers, by jointly considering the degree of risk of projects along with the risk management capability of organizations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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