Conceptualizing Routing Decisions in Business Processes: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Testing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business process models are widely used for purposes such as analyzing information systems, improving operational efficiency, modeling supply chains, and re-engineering business processes. A critical aspect of process representation involves a choice among alternative or parallel routes. Such choices are usually represented in process models by routing structures that appear as “split” and “merge” nodes. However, evidence indicates that modelers face difficulties representing routing options correctly. Clearly, errors in representing routing options might negatively affect the effective use of business process models. We suggest that this difficulty can be mitigated by providing process modelers with a catalog of routing possibilities described in terms that are meaningful to analysts. Based on theoretical considerations, we develop such a catalog and demonstrate that its entries have business meaning and that it is complete with respect to a defined scope of process behaviors that do not depend on resources or on software features. The catalog includes some routing cases not previously recognized. We tested experimentally the catalog in helping subjects understand process behavior. The findings demonstrate that the catalog helps modelers understand and conceptualize process behavior and that the likely reasons are its completeness and the practical terms used to describe its entries.
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 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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it