MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482570748 · doi:10.4018/ijbir.2016010101

Business Intelligence and Analytics Research

2016· article· en· W2482570748 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Intelligence Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness intelligenceSociotechnical systemComputer scienceAnalyticsProcess (computing)HeuristicKnowledge managementBig dataData scienceBusiness analyticsConstraint (computer-aided design)Management scienceArtificial intelligenceBusiness modelBusinessData miningMarketingBusiness analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tremendous growth of data of all forms has led to an increase in research on the uses and outcomes of Business Intelligence and Analytics (BI&A). Much of the current research however, focuses on the technological aspects. The process of decision making with data is treated more or less like the proverbial black box. If one is to better understand how BI&A can help managers make informed decisions, then more effort is needed to explore the decision making process. This paper argues that decision-making in organizations is enacted by a sociotechnical system in which human information processing forms the key constraint. By considering the stages of cognition and the use of rules-based versus heuristic-based decision making, the paper identifies a number of core questions related to the contribution of a BI&A system to the decision making process in organizations.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.103 · 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