Learning Framework of Project as a Temporary Organization: Based On the Scandinavian School Arguments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is identifying the nature of the project based on the Scandinavian school's arguments, examining the discourse of the critical success movement in PM, and then identifying project learning challenges as a critical success factor in project, and finally developing a comprehensive project learning framework which complies with project features. To this end, a systematic review method was used which, following its steps, out of 554 articles searched, 111 articles that were relevant to the research topic were selected and used. As the research conclusion, first, the project is a temporary organization, but not every temporary organization is a project. Second, although PM was praised by experts until a few decades ago, it was criticized by academics for a variety of reasons, including the failure of some important projects. Thus, the critical success movement was formed that emphasized the critical success factors in projects. Since project learning is considered one of the critical success factors, and it is also one of the major challenges in projects, in this study, a comprehensive project learning framework is developed. This framework is expected to be in line with the temporary nature of projects however, it has methodological limitations despite the development of related literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".