MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W353118689 · doi:10.26537/rebules.v0i2.766

Ferramentas da Contabilidade de Gestão Estratégica

2017· article· pt· W353118689 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Hélder Martins Coelho

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Business and Legal Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAgricultural sciencePolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo apresenta uma abordagem genérica sobre as práticas da Contabilidade de Gestão Estratégica nomeadamente do custo alvo enquanto prática de gestão de custos. Salienla a origem e o desenvolvimento histórico do custo alvo no Japão e refere as diferentes dimensões e modalidades do sua implantação noutros países parficularmente nos E.U.A. e na Europa. Aponta as dificuldades da suautilização e analisa a importância da gestão de custos na fase de concepção e desenvolvimento de produtos novos, para as empresas que têm como objectivo a criação de valor para o cliente.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Business and Legal SciencesSame topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207