MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787414567 · doi:10.1109/ieem.2017.8290010

Examining the application of standards for information technology service management practice: An empirical study

2017· article· en· W2787414567 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Chin, Younes Benslimane, Zijiang Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation Technology Infrastructure LibraryIT service managementIncident managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceFinancial management for IT servicesProcess managementITIL security managementService (business)Information technologyBusinessInformation securityComputer securityMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the application of Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) standards and provides an integrative view on how ITSM is executed in practice. Content analysis of 150 relevant job postings is used to assess the demand for ITSM standards, identify and rank the ITSM standards applied in organizations and identify the ITSM processes commonly implemented. Findings show a high adoption rate for ITSM standards and a large preference for ITIL. Findings also show that most commonly implemented processes are those that improve compliance with service level agreements and customer satisfaction. Details for such findings and their implication are discussed.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207