MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Collaborative Resource Management

2017· other· en· W4250318516 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Encyclopedia of Geography · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationKnowledge managementStakeholderResource management (computing)Resource (disambiguation)BusinessProcess managementFace (sociological concept)Collaborative governanceResource planningStakeholder engagementComputer sciencePublic relationsEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceCorporate governanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative resource planning has become the preferred model of resource management in many jurisdictions. It delegates responsibility to stakeholders who engage in face‐to‐face negotiation to develop plans by consensus. Empirical evaluations show that collaborative resource management is more likely to result in plans that are in the public interest and successfully implemented when compared to more conventional scientific‐based planning models that rely on experts to develop plans. Collaborative planning also produces additional “social capital” benefits such as improved stakeholder relations and management skills. While there are challenges in using collaborative planning, these can be overcome by using best practice guidelines.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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