MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W5137927 · doi:10.17705/1cais.00908

Developments in Practice V: IT Sourcing: Build, Buy, or Market

2002· article· en· W5137927 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsBusinessProvisioningService delivery frameworkBusiness modelService (business)Service providerMarketingStrategic sourcingIndustrial organizationProcess managementStrategic planningTelecommunicationsComputer scienceStrategic financial management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the logical evolution of IT service provisioning through various delivery models over time concentrating on the "rent" era as well as the "market" era - an emerging external IT services marketplace that offers rich opportunities for IT organizations to become more cost-effective in the future. With the market era, IT organizations speculate that strategic business applications for mission-critical applications will remain in-house but delivery for standard and meta-industry applications, processes, and technology will be off-site. Thus, for most companies, it is likely that external IT providers will form part of their future service delivery package and that some IT departments will become both consumers and sellers of components. The implications of these developments for IT management are articulated and the elements of an IT sourcing strategy presented.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.221 · 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