MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994875086 · doi:10.17705/1pais.11403

Social Capital and ICT Intervention: A Holistic Model of Value

2019· article· en· W2994875086 on OpenAlexaff
Zafor Ahmed, Vinod Kumar, Uma Kumar, Evren Eryilmaz

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Asia journal of the Association for Information Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalPopularityInformation and Communications TechnologyAmbivalenceIntervention (counseling)Knowledge managementValue (mathematics)Capital (architecture)BusinessSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceSocial scienceWorld Wide WebGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite increasing popularity of Social capital, the relationship between social capital and ICT often appears to be an ambivalent one. Existing information systems (IS) literature presented various frameworks and theoretical foundations to facilitate the study of this concept, yet several contradictory findings have been reported indicating a significant knowledge gap in this domain. Current research adopts a holistic approach to address this knowledge gap by answering “How does social capital generate value or benefits in an ICT intervention?” Method: Current research employs a systematic literature review coupled with a grounded theory method to investigate proposed research questions. Results: Primary contributions of the current research include (1) the identification of contextual relationship between contextual factors and social capital dimensions, and (2) development of a holistic model of social capital driven benefits during ICT intervention where the ‘enablers’ and the ‘drivers’ of benefit have been identified. Conclusions: Identification of distinct roles and value-drivers related to social capital will help IS researchers in explaining “how and why” benefits are achieved while employing a social capital lens. Availible at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/pajais/vol11/iss4/3/

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Asia journal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207