Integrating realistic job previews and realistic living conditions previews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of realistic job previews (RJPs) and realistic living conditions previews (RLCPs) during the recruitment of a group of internationally mobile knowledge workers who elect to go overseas independently rather than as part of an overseas assignment. It also aims to explore individual perceptions of the value of RJPs and RLCPs in contributing to work and general living adjustment. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on a qualitative study of international faculty in six Canadian universities using in‐depth interviews to examine their experiences of recruitment and focusing specifically on the extent to which RJPs and RLCP were provided. Findings The findings reflect the need for realistic recruitment that includes information about position specifications and responsibilities as well as non‐organizational factors such as opportunities for spousal employment. Thus, respondents did not conceptualize the recruitment process in terms of two separate components of “job” (RJP) and “living conditions” (RLCP). Instead realistic recruitment emerged as a holistic process, with each individual having his/her own differential weighting of the relative importance of different factors. Research limitations/implications The sample comprises mostly white‐western faculty, thus ethnic minority faculty are underrepresented. Further research might also explore the perceptions and experiences of international recruiters. Originality/value The paper extends the current literature on RJPs and RLCPs to consider internationally mobile knowledge workers who elect to go overseas independently. Located within an interpretive perspective it also enhances our understanding of individual experiences and the need for a more holistic approach to international recruitment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".