MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606514322 · doi:10.1108/02621710110382169

International co‐ordination and management development

2001· article· en· W1606514322 on OpenAlexaff
Ludwig Hoeksema, G. de Jong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdinationManagement developmentBusinessHuman resource managementPlan (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Development planService (business)Process managementOperations managementManagementKnowledge managementMarketingEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the highly competitive international consulting marketplace clients will always demand a world‐class service. A major challenge for PricewaterhouseCoopers is how to achieve the required level of international co‐ordination of the efforts of 160,000 people world‐wide without compromising responsiveness on a local scale in over 150 countries. Human resource management in general and management development in particular play an important role. A major investment is made in the development of the consultants, despite the acknowledged fact that most will leave the organization after only a few years. PwC uses a global framework of core competences as the key instrument in its development plan and every consultant is profiled according to it. Management development for partners has a more informal, self‐directed character. But the bottom line is still the optimization of international co‐ordination.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.012

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management DevelopmentSame topicFamily Business Performance and SuccessionFrench-language works237,207