MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133399573 · doi:10.1109/hicss.1991.184172

Supporting problem formulation and alternative generation in managerial decision making

2002· article· en· W2133399573 on OpenAlexafffund
Kenneth R. MacCrimmon, Christian Wagner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDialog boxComputer scienceInterface (matter)Domain (mathematical analysis)User interfaceFunction (biology)Task (project management)Human–computer interactionProcess (computing)Scheme (mathematics)Decision support systemArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMathematicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pre-choice stages of the problem solving process are more difficult to support through information systems than choice itself. Systems that support problem formulation and solution finding are typically either expert system programs with narrow application domains, or programs dealing with easily quantifiable problems. In contrast, the authors introduce a decision support system (GENI) that operates independent of domain, aiding the user in general problem solving tasks. GENI's user interface is built around a standard dialog function which can be modified by means of parameter settings. The various settings result in different stimuli being displayed and different data items being recorded. The standard interface design was chosen to reduce the development and maintenance effort, as well as to simplify the user's problem solving task.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207