MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386010738 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.7.013

Analyzing the effects of data mining techniques on management decision making and information exchange in the industrial sector: the role of cooperation as a moderating factor in Saudi Arabia

2023· article· en· W4386010738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faisal Alotaibi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Knowledge managementInformation sharingInformation exchangeBoosting (machine learning)BusinessComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explores the influence of data mining methods on the managerial decision-making in Saudi Arabia's industrial sector, emphasizing the moderating function of cooperation. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed to information technology managers, with 265 responses selected for data analysis. Smart PLS 4 software was used for the data analysis, and statistical measures were used to analyze the correlations between variables. The findings show that data mining approaches have a substantial positive relationship with improving decision-making and information exchange within external and internal contexts. The study also demonstrates that cooperation plays an important moderating role in these interactions, emphasizing the significance of building a cooperative atmosphere to improve the influence of data mining methods on decision-making and information sharing. The study's conclusions have practical relevance for organizations in the industrial sector. Organizations may improve their decision-making processes and information sharing by adopting data mining tools and boosting collaboration, enhancing performance and competitiveness.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207