MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558755275 · doi:10.4018/jeco.2017010104

Managing Changes in Service Oriented Virtual Organizations

2016· article· en· W2558755275 on OpenAlexaff
Waeal J. Obidallah, Bijan Raahemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementChange management (ITSM)Process (computing)Change controlComputer scienceBusiness processService (business)Knowledge managementVirtual organizationBusiness process managementControl (management)BusinessWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtual Organizations in a dynamic environment need efficient methods of change management to initiate changes to partners' services. In this paper, the authors present a structural and a procedural framework for change management in Service-Oriented Virtual Organizations. The structural framework categorizes changes into three layers of change and identifies triggers of changes. The procedural framework incorporates various components including the six layers of change processes, change control, change actors, and related management processes. A prototype with different scenarios of change is developed to validate the change management process in a collaborative environment. The authors employ the functionalities of the IBM Business Process Manager, including its recent Web 2.0 capabilities, to enhance collaboration between partners in the process of change. They demonstrate that the proposed solutions facilitate and enhance the process of change by effectively engaging all partners in a dynamic and collaborative way.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronic Commerce in OrganizationsSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207