MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317530246 · doi:10.1139/l2012-071

Prioritization criteria for enterprise resource planning systems selection for civil construction companies: a multicriteria approach

2012· article· en· W2317530246 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterprise resource planningAnalytic hierarchy processConsistency (knowledge bases)PrioritizationComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Resource (disambiguation)Process (computing)Field (mathematics)Resource planningSet (abstract data type)Multiple-criteria decision analysisSoftwareKnowledge managementProcess managementManagement scienceOperations researchBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, as a first step, a set of criteria and subcriteria was proposed for enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems selection for companies in the civil construction industry that is based on a review of the literature concerning the application of multicriteria models for evaluating ERP systems. Subsequently, after validation of these criteria by a group of information technology specialists, a field survey was developed based on the administration of a questionnaire and the use of the analytic hierarchy process. This survey enabled us to perform an analysis of the judgment consistency of the 11 respondents who participated in this study and to capture their perceptions of criteria importance. The survey revealed that respondents considered the software criterion to be the most important and showed the importance of subcriteria within groups of criteria, which greatly contributed to the decision-making process in ERP systems selection.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · 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