Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of a global public service has been put forth in the literature as a means of addressing a number of policy issues that can no longer be addressed by a nation-state in isolation. This article sets out to address whether it is possible to formulate and implement a leadership competency model that could be used to select, develop and reward these global public servants and, if so, what leadership competencies they would require. Evidence will be drawn from both the literature on the competencies required for global managers/leaders as well as various public sector leadership competency models. It is argued that more thought needs to be given to how a leadership competency framework might be fruitfully employed to buttress such a cadre of individuals. Points for practitioners Public services around the world have been embracing the use of leadership competency models as part of their human resources management frameworks for the past few decades. This research examines a number of the various models that have been employed with the intent of identifying key competencies that would be more universal in nature. Additional research needs to be conducted to ensure that such models reflect the distinctiveness of the public sector.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".