MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ISSAAC Model of Virtual Organization

2008· book-chapter· en· W2786746984 on OpenAlexaff
Bob Travica

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Virtual organizationCharacter (mathematics)AxiomPublic relationsBusinessKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling of virtual organization (VO) can be a useful method of making sense of a plethora of organizations that are proclaimed to be “virtual,” “virtualized,” or to exhibit “virtualness.” Since the advent of these notions (Byrne, 1993; Davidow & Malone, 1992; Mowshowitz, 1994), an enormous proliferation of VOs has followed in theory and practice across academic disciplines and industries. Being “virtual” had almost become a fashion embraced by corporations and other businesses, groups of organizations engaged in cooperation/collaboration or trading, libraries, schools, government organizations, non-government organizations, churches, museums, and so on. The implication of these developments is that it has become difficult to reach an agreement on what VO is beyond the customary agreement at a lexical level. Lexically, the virtual character refers to a potentiality and effect that divert from the actual appearance of a virtual thing (Webster, 1988). Thus, a VO is an effect of interaction of what in fact are different organizations or constituents of organizations (groups and individuals). Introduced by inventors of VO, this axiom has remained undisputed to date.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207