MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978629017 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.9.016

A methodology for analysis and assessment of business processes of Ukrainian enterprises

2019· article· en· W2978629017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anzhela Cherchata, Iryna Popovychenko, Уляна Андрусів, Lilya Simkiv, Оксана Клюха, Оleh Horai

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnterprise Management and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianBusinessProcess managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents a methodological tool for analysis and evaluation of business processes of Ukrainian enterprises. The proposed methodology is provided for the identification of "problem" areas of certain business processes by calculating average weighted, integral and generic indicators of efficiency and effectiveness. It allows to evaluate the status of both certain business processes of enterprises and their totality, and to set the priorities of management actions for their improvements. The proposed methodology is examined on the example of a specific enterprise of the construction industry. In the framework of the proposed criteria (financialeconomic, resource-production, external integration, organizational), a list of indicators, taking into account the specifics of the enterprise are formed. Assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of business processes by the specified criteria and indicators allows one to monitor the current activity of the enterprise and evaluate the effectiveness of its operations at every moment of time.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicEnterprise Management and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207