MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765440346 · doi:10.28945/2163

Factors of Project Manager Success

2015· article· en· W2765440346 on OpenAlexaff
Raafat George Saadé, James Wan, Heliu Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueInforming Science and IT Education Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsInternational Civil Aviation OrganizationConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical success factorContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementProject managementExploratory researchSuccess factorsExploratory factor analysisProject managerPsychologyComputer scienceManagementBusinessSociologyStructural equation modelingSocial scienceBusiness administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research seeks to analyze the project success factors related to project managers' traits. The context of the research entails a 'united nations' type of organization. Critical success factors from previous recent studies were adopted for this research. Nineteen factors were adopted and a survey methodology approach was followed. Sixty six participants completed the survey. Exploratory factor analysis results revealed the existence of three constructs: project manager engagement traits, education, and experience. The total number of factors representing these three constructs after the factor reduction exercise is 12. We conclude by discussing the results and by provide limitations to our research study and recommendations for future research. This conference paper was published in its final revision in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management (IJIKM). That final version is shown here.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInforming Science and IT Education ConferenceSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207