MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1952401385 · doi:10.1177/009102601104000302

Promoting Organizational Fit in Strategic HRM: Applying the HR Scorecard in Public Service Organizations

2011· article· en· W1952401385 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

VenuePublic Personnel Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Development and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardLine managementBusinessPublic sectorStrategic planningPublic serviceService (business)Public relationsProcess managementKnowledge managementMarketingPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some models of strategic HRM promote the idea of linking HRM's practices so they “fit” line managers' needs for implementing their strategies and objectives. We tried to apply the idea of “fit” by using the HR Scorecard in two public sector organizations: the Victoria Cool Aid Society and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. In our applications, we took each of the organization's strategic themes and asked a series of questions to identify HRM objectives, activities, initiatives, and measures to respond to internal client needs. The projects focused on the long range outcome of helping each organization achieve its strategies and objectives in an effective and efficient way. It did this by helping develop a better “fit” between HRM's systems, procedures and practices and what various line departments needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.078 · 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