MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014488775 · doi:10.1002/eng2.12155

A critical assessment of the design issues in e‐commerce systems development

2020· article· en· W3014488775 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

VenueEngineering Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabase transactionDomain (mathematical analysis)E-commerceInterface (matter)Process (computing)User interfaceWeb designWorld Wide WebThe InternetDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Designers of electronic commerce (e‐commerce) transaction system applications face many challenges; some are old while others are emerging because of the emerging nature of the e‐commerce domain itself. This article examines the critical design challenges at different stages of the design process of e‐commerce applications. The high‐level designs have a large number of new issues specific to Web applications. Among them, the security and networking problems are the most determinant for the success of the applications. At the detailed design level, the languages and the user interface are major concerns. The user interface, specific to the Web, forces designers to redefine the traditional concept of the end user for the more appropriate customer‐centric concept. This is necessary to address the needs of consumers and for the survival of e‐commerce businesses. In addition, we also examine issues bothering the development team and the e‐commerce environment. Designers experienced in non‐Web applications can be more successful at developing e‐commerce applications if they address the issues we identified in this article in a creative way.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.269 · 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