Project Management in North America, Stability of the Concepts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of project management has undergone very important developments during the last 10 years, if one considers the very large amount of activities that it has generated and continues to generate (papers in journals, dedicated journals, books, meetings, applications, etc.). Even if project management has reached some maturity—due to the construction of a common referential, a common body of knowledge called A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ( PMBOK® Guide)—its future is subject to questions and debate among its researchers. What is the evolution of the field? What is its structure? Is it integrating new topics that correspond to management by project? In order to answer such questions at least partially, we have studied project management literature by the method of associated words (scientometric analysis) and the software, “Leximappe.” All the papers that are relative to project management and included in the bibliographic ABI-INFORM database from 1987 to 1996 have been analyzed. In this paper, we present the main results of this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it