MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985654655 · doi:10.1002/hrm.20015

Form, content, and function: An evaluative methodology for corporate employment web sites

2004· article· en· W1985654655 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

VenueHuman Resource Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent analysisWeb siteSnapshot (computer storage)PerceptionFunction (biology)BusinessMarketingComputer sciencePublic relationsKnowledge managementPsychologyWorld Wide WebSociologyPolitical scienceThe InternetDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current article reports the findings from two qualitative analyses of organizational Web sites drawn from two years of Fortune's list of “Best Companies to Work For.” The results of these analyses provide a snapshot of online employment recruitment practices at two periods in time and supplied data for a classification procedure used to develop an evaluative methodology for assessing the impact of Web sites on job‐seeker perceptions. The subsequent analysis provides insight about how the form, content, and function of employment Web sites affect job‐seeker employment‐pursuit decisions. Trends identified in this research also provide guidance for future research and practice in the area of employment Web‐site strategy and design. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.040 · 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