Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilience is a novel but promising concept in project management studies. Resilience thinking can help projects maintain their performance through flexible, systemic and context-specific approaches once faced with disruptive events. That said, the main goal of this paper is to advance an interdisciplinary understanding of project resilience by proposing a definition and a conceptual framework of this concept. To achieve this article's objectives, the literature on project risk management is first reviewed to identify current research effort and limitations of dealing with disruptions. Consecutively, the concept of resilience in its broader applicability is explored, where two dimensions are sieved; awareness and adaptive capacity. The literature on the new concept of project resilience is also scrutinized, where its novel nature, the lack of scientific studies to conceptualize it, and its significance to project management are demonstrated. These facts helped propose a definition and a conceptual framework of project resilience, where a set of relationships are instigated, which constitute a base line to perform further disquisitions to assess their validity. Implications for future contributions advocate conceptual exchanges with more advanced research fields (e.g. organizational resilience). These exchanges can assist in the development of indicators to evaluate the ability of projects to deal with disruptive events and enhance their resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".