MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518945129

Job Rotation in an Academic Library: Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't!.

2002· article· en· W1518945129 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLeadership and Management in Organizations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob rotationSubject (documents)Order (exchange)The InternetJob analysisAcademic libraryRotation (mathematics)Process (computing)Computer scienceSociologyPsychologyManagementLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebJob designJob performanceBusinessSocial psychologyJob satisfactionArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THISARTICLE CONSIDERS JOB RoTATIoN-the systematic movement of employees from one job to another-as one of the many tools within the organizational development tool kit.There is a brief consideration of useful print and Internet literature on the subject as well as a discussion of the pros and cons ofjob rotation.The application ofjob rotation methods in Ryerson University Library, a small academic library, concludes the article in order to illustrate process and insights through example.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.010
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.187 · 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