MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212976215 · doi:10.32920/19158047

Benefits, Failures & Implementation of Intranets: An Intranet Action Plan For Goeasy Ltd.

2022· preprint· en· W4212976215 on OpenAlexaff
Irena Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph-Humber
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntranetProcurementBusinessKnowledge managementPlan (archaeology)Work (physics)The InternetPublic relationsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employee intranets have long served as tools to transfer information and strategic initiatives to corporate employees. However, over the last two decades, intranets have evolved into tools for not only top-to-bottom communication, but empower employees to communicate upward, collaborate, ask questions and participate in the virtual culture of the organization. With a rising popularity and dependency on instant messaging, tech-savvy interactions and prompt access to information, workers expect their employers to inform while providing a vibrant, interactive place to work. Although there’s no shortage of available technology to create the ideal portal, developing, implementing, adapting and maintaining an intranet is not an easy task. This applied research project is designed to build a case study for goeasy Ltd., a mid-sized, non-prime lending company, who is scheduled to implement an intranet in Q4, 2021. This MRP draws upon existing scholarly sources and personal observation within the organization to serve as a research foundation for an official procurement plan for the organization’s intranet project.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207