MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727411867 · doi:10.29173/cais552

Business Process Change through Trusted Third Party Repository (TTPR): A Case Study of the CeDA in Korea

2013· article· fr· W2727411867 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Namdo Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThird partyPolitical scienceBusinessTrusted third partyGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)World Wide WebLibrary scienceComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces new model of digital repositories called Trusted Third Party Repository (TTPR) in Korea, its service offerings and business impacts. As a government approved institution, TTPR offers third party archiving service, creates and verifies certificates for the retained e-documents, and plays a role as a trusted intermediary of e-documents exchange.Cette étude propose un nouveau modèle de dépôt numérique appelé Trusted Third Party Repository (TTPR) appliqué en Corée, une gamme de services et leurs impacts sur les affaires. Approuvés par le gouvernement, les TTPR sont des institutions qui offrent des services d’archivage, créent et valident des certificats pour les documents électroniques conservés et jouent un rôle en tant qu’intermédiaires de confiance garants de l’échange de documents électroniques.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207