MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066253814 · doi:10.1504/eg.2004.005551

Issues and challenges in e-governance planning

2004· article· en· W2066253814 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

VenueElectronic Government an International Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceInformation and Communications TechnologyE-governanceProject governanceThe InternetBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Action planInformation governancePublic relationsInternet governanceKnowledge managementPolitical sciencePublic administrationInformation systemEconomicsManagementManagement information systemsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of information and communication technology (ICT) has affected the functions and roles of governments. E-governance has been one of the main impacts of ICT. Many governments have realised the benefits of e-governance and have started offering their services through the internet. Based on a review of literature, this paper summarises the recent issues and challenges in e-governance development. The following key issues were identified and addressed: e-governance trends, e-governance evolution, e-governance usage, e-governance websites, e-government services, connectivity, e-governance readiness, citizen participation, e-governance technology, change management and funding. The following major challenges were identified: trust building in e-governance, ICT management, and privacy and security. Lessons from the analysis of issues and challenges are summarised. Research oriented managerial implications in the form of action plan are given.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.292 · 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