MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W776579958

The Trials of Mr. Takei

2012· article· en· W776579958 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony J. Mento, Elizabeth H. Jones

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of critical incidents · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueMobile Agent-Based Network Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCredibilityQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringEarningsBusinessManagementPublic relationsMarketingEconomicsPolitical scienceFinanceGeography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Yoshi Takei faced a major career challenge as he headed towards a meeting with his team. His team experienced a significantly higher rate of layoffs than comparable teams throughout the organization. Takei was a Japanese-American manager of a team of network engineers that worked in a Fortune 100 telecommunications company, Everlast, based in the Northeast region of the U. S. Promoted to a management position after excelling technically as a software engineer, he and his fast-paced engineering team provided critical network builds for major government and business clients. Takei knew his team was overworked, overstressed, and beaten down, but he had more bad news to deliver. Downward pressure forced him to cut one more person. His employees worked more than 60 hours per week already and eliminating another employee was likely to seriously damage whatever morale was left in his group. The economy was in the doldrums. Everlast, driven by quarterly earnings, had experienced a number of reductions in force (RIFs) since 2008. His challenge after the series of layoffs was how to rebuild trust and credibility with his team as part of his efforts to rejuvenate his flagging managerial career at Everlast. Mr. Takei's Team and the RIF Process for Networking Engineers Takei once oversaw a team of 12 employees, but due to quarter-over-quarter downsizing over the past year-and-a-half, his team now consisted of just seven engineers. Other managers who ran the same function in other states made it through most of the corporate force reductions without losing a single employee; whereas, Takei administered the busiest territory, but was forced to make painful cuts every quarter. Gamesmanship and politicking tended to play a significant role in the reduction in force (RIF) process at Everlast, or so Takei believed. These activities were abhorrent to Takei who believed that engaging in these activities were beneath him. His team had a huge network build to complete within the next eight weeks for a major customer, so he needed everybody focused on the network build because the regional executive management team had placed the project under close scrutiny. On the surface, Takei knew that RIFs at Everlast were determined by assessing candidates for downsizing according to the following criteria: area of company where employee worked, productivity, teamwork, quality, customer satisfaction, and attendance. From Takei's experience as engineering team manager, he believed the ultimate criteria for retention of employees ultimately depended on the grandstanding and political behavior of their manager at RIF meetings. Bob Bazile, Takei's direct supervisor, served as head of the Regional Executive Committee and was also head of the Networking Engineer RIF committee. Takei was also aware that Bazile had told him that Takei was not his first choice to head up the network engineering team Takei now led. Bazile's first choice was Joe Archilazzi, a personal friend and golfing buddy of Bazile. While a decent engineer with a knack for developing contacts and networks both inside and outside Everlast, Archilazzi had a reputation for cutting corners in order to uphold the deals he made. Bazile's choice of Archilazzi was overruled by the Everlast Corporate Management Development Board that had responsibility for succession planning and was the ultimate arbiter of appointments at this level. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,172

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,025
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,005
Communication savante0,0080,005
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,021
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0520,018

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,078
Tête enseignante GPT0,379
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of critical incidentsMême sujetMobile Agent-Based Network ManagementTravaux en français237 207