MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ISSAAC Model of Virtual Organization

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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
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