Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managers, IT practitioners, and IS researchers are easily seduced by the latest information technology wave. Consequently, we tend not to question conventional assumptions about the implementation of IT systems in organizations. Instead of providing managers with directions, IS researchers can sometimes turn into prognosticators of the latest information technology fad. We call on researchers to delve below the surface of new IT trends to expose inconsistencies between technological promises and the reality of deploying information systems in global organizations. Many IS researchers are turning their attention to the area of global information management (Gallupe and Tan, 1999). This journal is a vehicle for publishing such research work. Interest in integrated global information systems is fueled both by the developments in information and communications technologies and the trends in business towards globalization of products and markets. Conventional wisdom suggests that businesses operating in global markets would benefit from implementing global information systems and achieve economies of scale and scope. This may be true in some cases, but does it hold for all cases? I suggest it may not. In certain cases deploying global IT systems could lead to diseconomies of scale.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".