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 OpenAlexaff
Monique Aubry, Maude Brunet

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Management JournalSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207