MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390730847 · doi:10.1177/87569728231225198

Artificial Intelligence and Project Management: Empirical Overview, State of the Art, and Guidelines for Future Research

2024· article· en· W4390730847 on OpenAlexaff
Ralf Müller, Giorgio Locatelli, Vered Holzmann, Marly Nilsson, Temisan Sagay

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Management Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsAgricultural Institute of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeskProject managementSnapshot (computer storage)Engineering managementComputer scienceManagement scienceWork (physics)Knowledge managementData scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desk rejections of artificial intelligence (AI)–related submissions to the Project Management Journal ® (PMJ) are high. This article provides an overview and state-of-the-art snapshot on academic and practitioner work to derive at potential future research topics and guidelines on the execution and reporting of AI-related studies in project management.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0200.025
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Management JournalSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207