Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade a new generation of information systems (IS), such as enterprise resource planning, Web-based information systems and knowledge management support systems, have emerged in response to ever-changing organizational needs. As these systems are socio-technical phenomena in which social and technical factors interweave the ways in which people work, the issue of “how to integrate the work activity and social context of users into the IS which is being designed” becomes one of the principal problems of IS development (Bai et al., 1999). Therefore, the need for new information system design theories is recognized. According to Walls et al. (1992), an “IS design theory” must have two aspects—one dealing with the description of the system and one dealing with the prescription, that is, the process of developing of the system. The prescription aspect includes a description of procedures and guidelines for system development. In addition, these two aspects have to be grounded on theories from natural or social sciences, that is, kernel theories. Therefore, the development of new IS design theories requires a closer look at the system theories that go beyond the traditional system theory that is based, among other things, on Cartesian dualism, that is, mind/body or cognition/action, and on a model of cognition as the processing of representational information (Mingers, 2001). One of the candidate theories is the theory of autopoiesis, which can be best viewed as a system-grounded way of thinking with biological foundations, together with its extension into social domain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".