MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535419938 · doi:10.1109/seaa.2016.38

A Validation of a Measurement Based E-Government Portals' Maturity Model

2016· article· en· W2535419938 on OpenAlexaff
Abdoullah Fath-Allah, Laila Cheikhi, Rafa E. Al-Qutaish, Ali Idri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapability Maturity ModelE-GovernmentMaturity (psychological)Computer scienceGovernment (linguistics)Model validationWorld Wide WebData sciencePolitical scienceProgramming languageInformation and Communications Technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An e-government portal's maturity model is a set of stages (from basic to advanced ones) that determines the maturity of e-government portals. In fact, these models can be used to provide directions and recommendations for agencies to improve their portals' maturity. However, before choosing a maturity model by any agency, it is important to know to which extent the e-government community agree or disagree with the model. In previous research studies, we have built an e-government portals' maturity model that is based on a best practice model. The aim of this paper is to validate this new model by e-government experts using a survey to prove that the model is valid and reliable. For this purpose, we have described the components of this model, and the previous work that has been done to build it. Based on the results of the survey, our findings show that the new model has proven its validity.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207