MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Total Rewards: Good Fit for Tech Workers

2006· article· en· W175824421 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch-Technology Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIBMBusinessCompensation (psychology)Total quality managementMarketingWork (physics)High techQuality (philosophy)PsychologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OVERVIEW:Total rewards is a promising approach to rewards management that has been adopted by such technology-intensive firms as IBM, Microsoft, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. Total rewards takes a holistic approach to rewards, going beyond the strong focus on pay and benefits which has been the hallmark of traditional compensation practice. Total rewards considers all the rewards available in the workplace, including opportunities for learning and development, and quality work environment. Because these rewards are a high priority for technical workers, as shown in the research reviewed in this article, total rewards offers an opportunity to tap the unrealized potential of the organization. Effectively managed rewards will ease the critical attraction, retention and motivation challenges faced by high-technology firms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.273 · 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