MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048027481 · doi:10.1002/sres.2735

The enterprise complexity model: An extension of the viable system model for emerging organizational forms

2020· article· en· W3048027481 on OpenAlexaff
Raúl Espejo

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Research and Behavioral Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsCybernet Systems Corporation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterprise systems engineeringEnterprise information systemEnterprise integrationEnterprise life cycleSustainabilityKnowledge managementVariety (cybernetics)StructuringEnterprise systemEnterprise modellingComputer scienceProcess managementEnterprise planning systemEnterprise softwareManagement scienceBusinessEcologyEnterprise architectureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An enterprise complexity model (ECM) is offered as a methodological tool for the actors of an enterprise to overcome complex environmental problems. The heuristic for this purpose is the viable system model, which guides an enterprise's self‐organization towards policies creating, regulating and producing sustainable development goals. Self‐organization is grounded in correcting imbalanced interactions between an enterprise's actors and their environmental agents, to increase their requisite variety to achieve sustainability, that is, to overcome environmental problems. The interactions between actors and agents are facilitated by current and emergent digital technologies, which support the structuring of collaborative networks. Reflexive interactions between the enterprise's actors and agents in the problematic environment help their branching into all kinds of innovative organizational forms. The Viplan methodology is used to achieve this branching, which accounts for the enterprise's complexity with the support of the Viplan method. Respect for the environment and quality of interactions are values driving this ecology of enterprises towards a deeper and wider appreciation of the issues besetting future generations.

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)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystems Research and Behavioral ScienceSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207