MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011902443 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n3p98

The Information System Development Based on Knowledge Management in Higher Education Institution

2020· article· en· W3011902443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mukhneri Mukhtar, Sudarmi Sudarmi, Mochamad Wahyudi, Burmansah Burmansah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationKnowledge managementComputer scienceTriangulationData collectionInformation systemTacit knowledgeManagement information systemsInformation managementProcess managementData scienceEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to express the experiences, ideas, needs, and the use of information technology for the development of management information systems in a higher education institution. This study is qualitative approach research using the case study method. The research data collection uses the techniques of observation, interview, and documentation study. The research procedure used in this research consists of several research steps utilizing the case study method of Robert K. Yin: research planning, research design, research preparation, research data collection, research data analysis, and doing the research report. The research analysis is done by pattern matching. The data validity testing through data source triangulation and technique triangulation. The result of the study presents: (1) the analysis of management information system based on tacit and explicit knowledge through the process of exchanging experience, idea, and initiative, (2) the management information system design based on the needs analysis, and (3) the development of management information system using information technology.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207