Determinants of Effective Information Sharing in Publicly Funded Infrastructure Projects: A Scoping Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using qualitative (content) analysis, we provide a framework highlighting the determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in developing infrastructure projects. We examined the determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in publicly funded physical infrastructure projects, focusing mainly on health, education, and transportation projects. The literature search identified 2,330 citations. A review of these abstracts led to the retrieval of 86 full-text articles, of which 40 met the inclusion criteria. Coordination and collaboration were identified as two of the most important inter-organization processes required for the successful development of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects. These two processes are enabled by several elements of inter-organization information sharing such as human resources and expertise; incentives and rewards; and effective contract management and record-keeping. Our review also demonstrated that for organizations to effectively implement the determinants of inter-organization information sharing, they must first ensure they form effective interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it