MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323075402 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/aj93v

SWOT Analysis dalam Perspektif Model Bisnis

2023· preprint· id· W4323075402 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Naomi Aglieshanty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Agroindustry Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSWOT analysisBusiness administrationHumanitiesPolitical scienceBusinessManagementPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analisis SWOT adalah akronim dari Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis, atau diartikan sebagai kerangka kerja untuk mengidentifikasi dan menganalisis kekuatan, kelemahan, peluang, dan ancaman organisasi. Dilansir dalam laman Techtarget.com, analisis SWOT adalah kerangka kerja untuk mengidentifikasi dan menganalisis kekuatan, kelemahan, peluang, dan ancaman organisasi. Kerangka SWOT ditemukan oleh Albert Humphrey, yang menguji pendekatan ini pada 1960-an dan 1970-an di Stanford Research Institute. Analisis SWOT awalnya dikembangkan untuk bisnis dan berdasarkan data dari perusahaan Fortune 500. Kemudian telah diadopsi oleh organisasi dari semua sektor sebagai bantuan brainstorming untuk membuat keputusan bisnis.

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.169 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesFrench-language works237,207