MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967952918 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v1n1p147

Profiles, Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics A Case of Malaysian Government Retirees

2009· article· en· W1967952918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khulida Kirana Yahya, Johanim Johari, Zurina Adnan, Mohd Faizal Mohd Isa, Zulkiflee Daud

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)PsychologyBusinessEconomic growthGerontologyMarketingMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By the year 2020, Malaysia will be an ageing society ignited by the expected increase of senior citizens to 2.71 million. Thisgroup consists mainly of the government retirees, who have reached their mandatory retirement age of 56 years old. Theobjectives of this study are twofold. First, this paper examines the profiles of the Malaysian government retirees andsecond, to identify the current knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) they have. To elicit findings,a total of 1609 questionnaires were compiled and analyzed using SPSS. Findings indicate that most of the retirees haveacquired numerous KSAOs throughout their years of service, especially in the area that relates to their tasks andresponsibilities. However, once they have retired, these retirees are unable to harness their invaluable KSAOs for thecountry’s development. It is therefore of paramount importance for the government to develop a proper means for theseretirees to utilize their KSAOs. Recommendations emphasize several policy guidelines and activiti

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207