MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994660470 · doi:10.1350/ijps.2006.8.4.253

Executive Development and Succession Planning: Qualitative Evidence

2006· article· en· W1994660470 on OpenAlex
Steven A. Murphy

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Police Science & Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Succession planningPsychologyQualitative researchProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Ecological successionQualitative propertyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the qualitative findings of a study examining the succession planning process of a large Canadian police force. The richness of the qualitative data resulted in the identification of key themes that were not considered in the quantitative portion of the same study. These themes included: a lack of confidence in the executive development programme; a desire for executive development to be more developmental in nature; person-organisation constraints; a negative image of executives; a desire for experience to play a more pivotal role; and a lack of information on the executive development process. These themes are discussed in terms of their implications for developing the next generation of executives. The results are discussed in relation to the succession planning literature and organisational context.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.309 · 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