MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389350569 · doi:10.5430/jms.v14n2p69

Comparison of Change Management Models and Suggestions for Top Management

2023· article· en· W4389350569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joonas Yli-Kerttula, Keijo Varis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityTransparency (behavior)ScalabilityComputer scienceChange management (ITSM)Process managementKnowledge managementBusinessOperations managementEngineeringHuman–computer interactionDatabaseComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents comparison of selected change management models, including pros and cons of different models. Model comparison is done from four different perspectives: 1. Usability and scalability, 2. Effectiveness, 3. Transparency and communication, 4. Autonomous versus controlled motivating. The article concludes with comparison summary and presents suggestions for companies evaluating their change management strategies and models.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicManagement and Organizational PracticesFrench-language works237,207