MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W765939974

Implementing Electronic Services Transnational Guidelines and Perspectives

2008· article· en· W765939974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cor Franke, Paul Zeef

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPublic relationsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Flexibility (engineering)LegislationService (business)MarketingPolitical scienceEconomicsManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic services to citizens are a growing concern to governments all over the world, not in the least in the domains of social security and labor market. It was at the Montreal Conference of the ISSA – the International Social Security Association – in 1999 that many organizations in many countries showed to be grappling with many questions concerning the implementation of electronic service delivery. In order to elaborate on experiences of implementation, the ISSA and three Dutch member organizations arranged an expert work shop on implementation strategies for E-government in social security in the Autumn of 2000. This report summarizes the experts conclusions on strategies, methods, do s and don ts. It emphasizes the importance of a mix of technological, political, legislational and organizational prerequisites. The considerations encompass the following domains or perspectives: (i) Infrastructure, being the technical devices such as network components, servers, protocols, instruments for client identification, which needs some cooperation or coordination between social security organizations; (ii) Data management, which poses the question how governments can avoid to ask citizens or employers for the same information twice; (iii) Standards and responsibilities, dealing with scope, and with how they are to be established, implemented and maintained; (iv) Client appreciation, one of the key issues when designing the services, which ones and how; (v) Issues of flexibility, which are related to changes in legislation, in technical standards and client appreciation; and last but not least: (vi) Costs and benefits, the context of justification for investments. For each domain or theme, context, goals and experiences are stated first. Only a few examples are described in the report itself. Each theme ends with do s and don ts, aiming at the promotion of action, at the reduction not the ignorance of complexity. A range of illustrative cases is described in a separate appendix.

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)0.049
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.025
Scholarly communication0.0340.023
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0150.015
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207