MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382600825 · doi:10.4301/s1807-1775202320006

Agile Governance Manifesto contemporary reading: Unveiling an Appreciative Agenda

2023· article· en· W4382600825 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Systems and Technology Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de PernambucoFundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de PernambucoUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsAgile software developmentManifestoCorporate governanceReading (process)Appreciative inquiryEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementPolitical scienceEngineeringProcess managementSociologyManagementComputer sciencePedagogySoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, fundamental principles and behavioral guidelines were introduced to support the implementation of agile governance. This paper explores the evolution of Agile Governance and how these principles can enhance its implementation. We critically review the Agile Governance Manifesto and compare it with perceptions and factual information by examining our research and practice for fifteen years. The study provides a grounded understanding of the topic and presents an agenda with 12 emerging research and practice topics in agile governance. A framework is also proposed to organize these topics into two central lines, guiding future research and practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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