MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382658182 · doi:10.1287/ited.2023.0286

Introducing Prescriptive and Predictive Analytics to MBA Students with Microsoft Excel

2023· article· en· W4382658182 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Diamant

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Transactions on Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpreadsheets and End-User Computing
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnalyticsBusiness analyticsData scienceMicrosoft excelPython (programming language)Predictive analyticsBusiness intelligencePipeline (software)Big dataSoftware engineeringKnowledge managementBusiness modelManagementProgramming languageData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managers are increasingly being tasked with overseeing data-driven projects that incorporate prescriptive and predictive models. Furthermore, basic knowledge of the data analytics pipeline is a fundamental requirement in many modern organizations. Given the central importance of analytics in today’s business environment, there is a growing demand for educational pedagogies that give students the opportunity to learn the fundamentals while also familiarizing them with how such tools are applied. However, a tension exists between the introduction of real-world problems that students can analyze and extract insight from and the need for prerequisite knowledge of mathematical concepts and programming languages such as Python/R. As a consequence, this paper describes an application-focused course that uses Microsoft Excel and mathematical programming to introduce MBA students with nontechnical backgrounds to tools from both prescriptive and predictive analytics. While students’ gain proficiency in managing data and creating optimization and machine learning models, they are also exposed to broader business concepts. Teaching evaluations indicate that the course has helped students further develop their practical skills in Microsoft Excel, gain an appreciation of the real-world impact of data analytics, and has introduced them to a discipline they originally believed was best suited for more technically focused professionals. Supplemental Material: Supplemental materials are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2023.0286 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.048

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS Transactions on EducationSame topicSpreadsheets and End-User ComputingFrench-language works237,207