MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management Efficiency and Its Measuring Methods

2009· article· en· W1919464500 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueCanadian social science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducation, Management, Technology, Human Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyManagementPolitical sciencePhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is management efficiency and how to measure it which is a subject that isn’t resolved scientifically in the world of academe. The authors of the paper, to start with researching quantity of management, think that management efficiency is quantity of information communicating finished by a manager in a unit time and on the basis of which put forth corresponding method of measuring management efficiency. Key word: management efficiency, essentials of management, method of measuring Resume: Q’est-ce que c’est l’efficacite de la gestion? comment peut-on la mesurer ? c’est une question qui n’est pas encore resolue dans le monde academique. l’auteur de cet article, en commencant par l’etude de la quantite de la gestion, pense qu l’efficacite de la gestion est la quantite des informations communicatives accomplies par un gerant dans un temps determine, d’ou viennent ses methodes de mesure correspondes. Mots cles: l’efficacite de la gestion, l’essentiel de la gestion, la methode de mesure

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.300 · 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