MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W81616619

WHY DO UNIVERSITIES MAKE DISCONTINUOUS CHANGES TO THEIR WEB SITES? EXAMINING THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FOUR REASONS FOR CHANGE

2003· article· en· W81616619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terry Ryan, Richard Field, Lorne Olfman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb sitePoliticsOrder (exchange)Variety (cybernetics)Institutional changeState (computer science)Public relationsPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebBusinessThe InternetMarketingComputer sciencePublic administrationLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An examination of prior Web pages shows that the typical university will sometimes make a discontinuous change to its Web site (i.e., a sudden, major shift in a Web site between two points in time).This study empirically examines reasons for such discontinuous changes, surveying university Webmasters at a variety of institutions where discontinuous Web site changes had occurred.Universities varied by type (public, private), by level (Bachelors, Masters, PhD), and by nation (Canada, USA).Four reasons for discontinuous Web site change, identified in an earlier study of discontinuous Web site change in state governments, were compared: rational, marketing, political, and institutional.According to the university Webmasters surveyed, rational reasons for change were most important, followed by marketing, institutional, and political reasons, in that order.The ordering of reasons reflects statistically significant differences among types of reasons.Results did not vary by type, level, or nation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicWeb visibility and informetricsFrench-language works237,207