MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Information Systems Development Outcomes

2011· book-chapter· en· W2479187525 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gordon Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Information systemComputer scienceKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementBusinessEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When is an information system development outcome considered a success and when is it considered a failure? What factors contribute to a conclusion of either success or failure? How does the situation arise to create the environment which contributes to the above conclusions? Generally, an information system is considered a success when it does what it is supposed to and/or the user is satisfied with the system’s performance in support of the information-providing and decision-making responsibilities. Naturally, this area is fraught with the problems inherent in divergent interpretations of “what it is supposed to do,” “satisfaction,” and “systems performance.” Suffice it to say, when the systems developer and user are in positive agreement about these interpretations, the information system development outcome may be considered successful.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.009

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207