MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810156263 · doi:10.1177/875697281604700508

Organizational Design in Public Administration: Categorization of Project Management Offices

2016· article· en· W2810156263 on OpenAlex

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

VenueProject Management Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementCategorizationRelevance (law)Context (archaeology)OPM3Project managementProcess managementBusinessOrganizational architectureComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering managementProject management triangleSystems engineeringPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article aims to renew the classification system of PMOs within the context of organizational design and proposes an empirical categorization of PMOs based on types of projects: engineering and construction, information systems/information technology, business processes, and new product development. The research adopted a quantitative approach with a survey of 114 entities belonging to 42 departments and agencies within a single public administration. The findings show that this categorization system of PMOs has the potential to support the organizational design of PMOs in organizational context, structural characteristics, functions, and performance. This article contributes to the relevance of organizational design within the project management field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.238 · 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