MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142220328 · doi:10.1504/eg.2014.063316

E-government portals best practices: a comprehensive survey

2014· article· en· W2142220328 on OpenAlexaff
Abdoullah Fath Allah, Laila Cheikhi, Rafa E. Al-Qutaish, Ali Idri

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Government an International Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceGovernment (linguistics)BusinessPublic relationsE-GovernmentInternet privacyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical scienceInformation and Communications Technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An e-government portal is a website that is offering various useful electronic services to the citizens. With the traditional government portals (offices), the services provided to the citizens need a lot of paperwork and many officers are required to conduct such services, and also the citizens need to be present personally, which means they have to leave their jobs for many hours. Thus, making these services as electronic ones through the web will result in great savings for governmental entities and citizens. This paper exploring the e-government portal's best practices collected from research and industry. Although these best practices exist in the literature, they are not classified or grouped in a logical way. In addition, this paper aims to provide a structured overview of these best practices according to three categories of best practices (i.e., back-end, front-end, and external).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Government an International JournalSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207