MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397284541 · doi:10.17706/jsw.10.7.805-824

E-Government Portals Maturity Models: A Best Practices’ Coverage Perspective

2015· article· en· W2397284541 on OpenAlexaff
Abdoullah Fath-Allah, Laila Cheikhi, Rafa E. Al-Qutaish, Ali Idri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Software · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)Maturity (psychological)Capability Maturity ModelGovernment (linguistics)Best practiceData scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceLawOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-government is a field where oriented practice is considered crucial for its prosperity.Therefore, best practices are considered among the success factors of e-government portals.To this end, e-government maturity models can be used to provide guidance and guidelines to identify those best practices.After an extensive literature review, we have collected both; the e-government portals' best practices and organized them according to their purposes in an e-Government Portals' Best Practice Model (eGPBPM), and the set of 25 maturity models best practices in two separated previous published studies.The eGPBPM is composed of four best practice categories including: back-end, Web design, Web content and external.Moreover, each maturity model has several stages of maturity and each stage include a set of best practices used to rank the maturity of e-government portals.The goal of this paper is to identify the extent to which e-government maturity models are covering the best practices of the eGPBPM.To achieve this goal, a mapping between the maturity models' best practices for each maturity stage and the best practices of the eGPBPM has been performed.Our findings show that although this set of maturity models are used in practice, they include only some of the e-government portals' best practices and none of them have a full coverage of those best practices.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of SoftwareSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207