MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995644261 · doi:10.1108/09696470110405495

Building high performance learning: a focus on career results and the business bottom line

2001· article· en· W1995644261 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hadyn Ingram, Eric Sandelands, Richard Teare

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Learning Organization · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsCanadiana.org
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction learningAction (physics)Focus (optics)Experiential learningKnowledge managementWorkplace learningOrganizational cultureSociologyPsychologyPedagogyPublic relationsCooperative learningComputer sciencePolitical scienceTeaching methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explores the nature of action learning and its benefits. Looks at the importance of aligning personal learning with corporate objectives. Draws conclusions from the authors’ experiences of using e‐learning to support action learning within organizations. Uses case study examples from Whitbread, Granada, Interbrew and the Canadian School of Managementty ‐54 to enrich and illustrate these points.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Learning OrganizationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207