Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As Web‐based business nears the decade mark, it is appropriate to take stock of its progress and the degree to which it has met or fallen short of predictions. This paper examines the extent to which companies have followed the advice of experts when it comes to designing an organizational structure for their e‐business initiatives. It compares the prevalence of centralized versus business unit level decision‐making in Canadian companies with e‐business experience. It also explores who is given responsibility for application development, backend integration, and infrastructure maintenance. The data demonstrate that use of independent contractors has increased. However, outsourcing in general is less prevalent than predicted and implementation driven by business units, rare. Furthermore, the practices of companies with well‐established initiatives differ significantly from those of the less experienced, offering important lessons for newcomers to e‐business. Résumé Etant donné que le commerce basé sur la toile a presque dix ans, il est temps d'analyser son progrés et l'écart de résultat par rapport aux prédictions. La présente étude analyse quel a été le niveau de suivi des conseils d'expert par les entreprises en qui concerne la programmation des structures de mise en œuvre de leurs projets de commerce électronique. Elle compare la position dominante des décisions prises au niveau centralisée sur celles prises au niveau de la division spécialisée chez les entreprises canadiennes ayant une expérience en commerce électronique. Elle fait apparaître également à qui a été confiée la responsabilité du développement des logiciels, de l'étape finale de l'intégration et de l'entretien de l'infrastructure. Les données démontrent que l'emploi des entrepreneurs indépendants a augmenté. Cependant, la sous‐traitance n'est en général pas aussi forte que prévue et le développement assuré par les divisions spécialisées reste faible. En outre, la pratique des entreprises ayant des activités bien établies se distingue considérablement de celle qui ont moins d'expérience, offrant ainsi des leçons importantes pour les nouveaux venus du commerce électronique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".