MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027887781

Developing strategic narratives: Designing services as systems

2019· other· en· W7027887781 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Services computingStrategic planningDuality (order theory)Key (lock)Health services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing services as systems is increasingly important. Those in healthcare and government don’t have much of a choice. However, envisioning services as systems is a hurdle. The trouble is from commonplace definitions of ‘service’ and ‘system’. But what if they are one and the same? An approach to communicating the designs of services in the form of strategic narratives, involves solving a puzzle to generate the story. The puzzle represents the duality of system and service. The “proof of work” reflects the difficulty in designing services as systems.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0140.024
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University)French-language works237,207