MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911418558 · doi:10.1177/1087724x18823009

Risk Factors in IT Public–Private Partnership Projects

2019· article· en· W2911418558 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

VenuePublic Works Management & Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration PubliqueUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementGeneral partnershipProcurementBusinessPublic–private partnershipProject risk managementIT risk managementPrivate sectorRisk management planGovernment (linguistics)Public sectorProject managementRisk management frameworkRisk analysis (engineering)FinancePublic relationsMarketingProject management triangleEconomicsManagementEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project managers from both the public and private sectors have always known that better project management is often synonymous with better risk management. As such, all projects are subject to risk factors that make their management more or less complicated. In this article, we contend that successful project managers need tools to better identify and assess project risks and we try to provide such a tool in the form of grid of specific risk factors. This article analyzes risk factors in IT projects conducted using public–private partnership (PPP) procurement from the public partner’s perspective. Our research uses, as empirical case studies, three projects undertaken by the Tunisian government in partnership with IT and engineering companies. The results reveal 13 specific risk factors, which are classified into three generic risk factor categories: strategic, operational, and key resources. The adverse effects of risks materializing are also identified and analyzed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, 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 score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.226 · 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