MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079686026 · doi:10.1002/pmj.21482

From a Methodology Exercise to the Discovery of a Crisis: Serendipity in Field Research

2015· article· en· W2079686026 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

VenueProject Management Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerendipityCreativityField (mathematics)Process (computing)Management scienceKnowledge managementEpistemologyEngineering ethicsManagementPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyEngineeringComputer scienceSocial psychologyEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although serendipity is commonly encountered during research activities, it has not received as much attention as it deserves. Through a case study on a case study, which evolved from a methodology exercise into a rare case study of a project crisis, we mobilize the notions of serendipitous events and serendipity patterns to demonstrate how chance was cultivated using sagacity within the serendipity equation. Thereby, we contribute to a better understanding of the process of discovery through serendipitous creativity, especially in the dynamic and volatile project management research field where tensions between planned and unplanned are multiple.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.181 · 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