Innovapost uses Web 2.0 tools to engage its employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Web 2.0 is becoming increasingly popular in mainstream culture; blogs, wikis and social networking sites are springing up rapidly. Businesses are now adopting this suite of technologies and practices to improve the connectivity of their employees and derive benefits from increased employee engagement. Innovapost has recently started to investigate the use of Web 2.0 in a number of ways. The purpose of this case study feature is to report the results of a number of initiatives. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses the experiences of Innovapost as a case study. Findings Early experiences with a CEO blog were very positive and provided the impetus for additional experimentation. Forums provided mechanisms for employees to contribute to the development of the strategic business plan and to engage in ongoing discussions of Innovapost business and HR topics. The most ambitious foray to date has been InnovaConnections, which is a social networking tool that allows project managers to post opportunities and have interested employees “bid” for the work. Originality/value These initial experiments have led employees to suggest new and exciting possibilities for Web 2.0 at Innovapost and continued developments in this burgeoning area are anticipated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".