MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2481618729 · doi:10.2495/dne-v11-n3-416-427

Leveraging information for high level-of-abstraction organizational processes

2016· article· en· W2481618729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Luis Dalmau-Espert, Faraón Llorens Largo, Patricia Compañ, Rafael Molina-Carmona

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBlackboard (design pattern)Process (computing)Agile software developmentAbstractionOntologyInformation systemKnowledge managementProcess managementSoftware engineeringData scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, Big Data techniques have made possible to obtain interesting low-level information from large amounts of data.However, the information is often difficult to be enriched enough to aid in high-level organizational processes.The objective of this work is to define a model to allow the use of available information for the design and implementation of high level-of-abstraction processes that take place in the organizations.Particularly, this paper is focused on the strategic planning (SP) process, one of the most complex and abstract processes in any company.So far, there are very few successful attempts to automate this process, which is usually based on manual tasks.At the most, the results from the automatic data analysis are generated and used as reports and are not integrated in the process.A further step is proposed, posing a SP model based on a multi-agent system with a blackboard, which is used as a means of communication and storage of the generated information.The information is described using ontology to formalize both the SP process and the information used in each step.The combination of these elements enables the participation, interaction and sharing of information and knowledge of the participants in the process.The accumulated knowledge allows the use of previous experience to automate the process and improve the decision making.In short, the proposed model is a formal, comprehensive, agile and flexible solution to perform the process of SP in organizations today leveraging of the enormous amount of available data and the gathered experience.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207