MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902598562 · doi:10.4018/ijbir.2019010104

Critical Barriers to Business Intelligence Open Source Software Adoption

2018· article· en· W2902598562 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

VenueInternational Journal of Business Intelligence Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness intelligenceKnowledge managementComputer scienceOpen source softwareOpen sourceBusinessSoftwareData scienceProcess management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few years, managers have been hard pressed to become more data-driven, and one of the prerequisites in doing so is through the adoption of Business Intelligence (BI) tools. However (1) the adoption of BI tools remains relatively low (2) the acquisition costs of proprietary BI tools are relatively high and (3) the level of satisfaction with these BI tools remain low. Given the potential of open source BI (OSBI) tools, there is a need for analyzing barriers that prevent organizations from adopting OSBI. Drawing a systematic review and a Qualitative Survey of BI Experts, this study proposes a framework that categorizes and structures 23 barriers to OSBI adoption by organizations including 4 that were identified by BI Experts but not explicitly found in the literature. This paper contributes to OSS and Information Systems (IS) research literature on BI adoption in general and provides specific insights to practitioners.

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)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.261 · 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