International Challenges to Transformational Government: Enhanced Project Management Identifies Need for Existential Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case for transformational eGovernment continues unabated; impatient stakeholders are more demanding; people, process and content are profoundly impacted; opportunity is rampart - but so is risk and complexity; still, transformational eGovernment remains more theoretical than practical. Execution has faltered and relief is not obvious.Enhanced project management has made progress in advancing eGovernment by applying enhanced project management in a holistic manner so that project activities are fully integrated with on-going operational activities: all with an emphasis on measurable results and outcomes.This paper, however, concludes that there is another dimension to the transformational eGovernment navigation tool-kit that coalesces with enhanced project management and creates a multi-dimensional approach to transformation; it is existential change leadership that focuses on human mindset behaviour.Thus, the next step in the research is to examine a two-pronged approach (enhanced project management and existential change leadership) to respond to the challenges and barriers that have long impeded transformational eGovernment progress and the accountability vacuum for the elusive transformational breakthrough results
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".