MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211248739 · doi:10.14217/9781848591585-en

e-Governance in Small States

2013· book· en· W4211248739 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anthony Ming, Omer A. Awan, Naveed Somani, Maryam Amin, Katherine Kirkby, Omer Mr

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth Secretariat eBooks · 2013
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyChina Scholarship CouncilMalta Council for Science and TechnologyUniversity of BirminghamIqra UniversityGovernment of OntarioUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationWorld Bank Group
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceDeveloping countryDemocracyPosition (finance)BusinessAction planPlan (archaeology)Political scienceAction (physics)ICTSPublic administrationPublic relationsEconomic growthInformation and Communications TechnologyEconomicsPoliticsManagementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ICTs can create digital pathways between citizens and governments that are affordable, accessible and widespread. This offers the opportunity for developing small states to leapfrog generations of technology when seeking to enhance governance or to deepen democracy through promoting the participation of citizens in processes that affect their lives and welfare. For small developing countries, especially those in the early stages of building an e-Government infrastructure, it is vital that they understand their position in terms of their e-readiness, reflect upon the intrinsic components of an e-Governance action plan, and draw lessons from the success and failures of the various e-Government initiatives undertaken by other countries, developed or developing. This book aims to strengthen the understanding of policy-makers by outlining the conditions and processes involved in planning and execution of e-Government projects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommonwealth Secretariat eBooksSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207