MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809001524 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n5p34

Challenges Faced in Inter-Organizational Collaboration Process. A Case Study of Region Skåne

2018· article· en· W2809001524 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Namonda Kwibisa, Safaa Majzoub

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Knowledge managementBusinessPoliticsEmpirical researchProcess managementPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increase in the complexity of social and societal problems that even a large actor cannot solve alone has caused pressure on many sectors, organizations and entities making the need for collaboration to be more urgent. This is because collaboration enables merging financial resources, human resources and expertise needed to tackle complex problems. However, the increased failure of collaborations requests greater consideration and investigation of the challenges in collaboration. The purpose of this study is to investigate the challenges in inter-organizational collaboration at management and employee level with a focus on the Thomson and Perry (2006), model of collaboration. To fulfil this purpose, inter-organizational collaboration towards open Skåne 2030 strategy was used as a case study. The empirical data showed that there are challenges in both the management and employee level in inter-organizational collaboration. Further, the study also found that political influence is a major challenge in inter-organizational collaboration. The study makes a contribution with the adaption of the model of collaboration process. The model serves to enlighten collaborators that challenges in inter-organizational collaboration are inter-linked.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207