MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

E-Collaboration

2008· book-chapter· en· W4251986283 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Torkia, Luc Cassivi

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Order (exchange)BusinessProduct (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Value (mathematics)Industrial organizationProcess (computing)MarketingKnowledge managementBusiness administrationOperations managementProcess managementManagementEngineeringEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last 10 years or so, we have been witnessing a major paradigm shift from the information age to the relationship age (see Table 1). According to Galbreath (2002), the relationship age is truly about the value of the relationships a firm maintains and manages. Customers, employees, suppliers and partners all contribute synergistically to the economic output of the firm. Ashkenas, Ulrich, Todd, and Kerr (1995) put it more formally by saying that many organizations were faced with a rate of change that exceeded their capability to respond, and that they had to attempt to retool their organization in order to meet an entirely new set of criteria for success. Hence, a firm carrying out business in the Relationship Age is essentially focusing on improving one or more of the success factors such as speed of execution, process and product flexibility, knowledge integration, and ability to innovate new and profitable processes, products, or services (Ashkenas et al., 1995).

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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1920.100

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207