MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074950545 · doi:10.1109/icdim.2014.6991416

Analyzing national e-Government interoperability frameworks: A case of Thailand

2014· article· en· W2074950545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sasithorn Suchaiya, Somnuk Keretho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityCross-domain interoperabilityGovernment (linguistics)Database transactionE-GovernmentComputer scienceSemantic interoperabilityJoint (building)Knowledge managementArchitectureBusinessEnterprise architectureEngineering managementProcess managementWorld Wide WebInformation and Communications TechnologyEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many countries have actively engaged in the development of interoperability for electronic data and transaction exchange among government agencies to provide better joint-up public services to their citizens. National-level policy frameworks, often called Electronic Government Interoperability Frameworks (e-GIF), were established in many of those countries. However, most of these e-GIF frameworks haven't adopted the holistic concept of Enterprise Architectures (EA), except for example, Thailand, U.S.A. and Canada. This paper proposes a comparative analysis methodology with an aim to propose further improvement for the EA-based interoperability frameworks to better drive the effective development of smart and connected e-government services. In this paper, Thailand e-Government Interoperability Framework is methodically compared and analyzed with the U.S. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework as a case study.

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)0.000
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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207