MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061449831 · doi:10.4018/jegr.2010102005

E-Government Implementation Perspective

2010· article· en· W2061449831 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmud Akhter Shareef, Vinod Kumar, Uma Kumar, Abdul Hannan Chowdhury, Subhas Chandra Misra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electronic Government Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Information and Communications TechnologyThe InternetBusinessPublic sectorQuality (philosophy)GRASPPerspective (graphical)Competitive advantagePublic relationsMarketingIndustrial organizationKnowledge managementProcess managementEngineeringEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though many countries are still just beginning to grasp the potential uses and impacts of Electronic-government (EG), advances in technologies and their applications continue. Observing the proliferation of EG, countries are increasingly turning to the Internet to market their EG system to gain a competitive advantage. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such online government systems largely depends on the mission of implementing EG. For successful adoption and implementation of EG, it is essential that a country first identify an explicit objective and a specific strategy. We have examined implementation strategies of EG of seven diverse countries whose objectives and mission for implementing EG differ significantly. However, they have the following strategies in common: i) extensive application of information and communication technology (ICT) in the public sector; ii) overall reformation of the public sector; iii) development of a better quality service structure; and iv) more cohesive integration of citizens with government.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.431 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Electronic Government ResearchSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207