MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754830060 · doi:10.24089/j.sisfo.2017.05.002

Pemetaan Proses Bisnis dengan Pendekatan Klasifikasi Proses CIMOSA: Studi Kasus Perusahaan Pengelola Kawasan Industri

2017· article· id· W2754830060 on OpenAlexaff
Effi Latiffianti, Stefanus Eko Wiratno, Dewanti Anggrahini, Muhammad Saiful Hakim

Bibliographic record

VenueSisfo · 2017
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Agroindustry Studies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness administrationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A business process map is said to be an effective tool to manage a firm value chain.Yet, the absence of business maps in the firms was frequently found.Some of the reasons behind this absence include an overwhelming large number of available languages with their complexity and the large amount of prcess-related data to construct the map while business practitioners have already been burdened by job routines.Offering a simple approach, this paper aims to map business processes using CIMOSA process classification framework.The mapping employed process reasoning and expert judgement from the observed company.An extensive use of the company internal data, interview, and FGD with stakeholders dominated the process mapping.Through iterative verification and validation, a complete business process map has been resulted for the case study.Relationships between process groups within CIMOSA process classification were also proposed.The result suggested CIMOSA process classification was proven to be applicable for nonmanufacturing based company, yet it is very practical for business process mapping at a certain level of detail.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSisfoSame topicAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesFrench-language works237,207