Battling the war for talent: an application in a military context
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce a comprehensive new recruitment model that brings together research findings in the different areas of recruitment. This model may serve as a general framework for further recruitment research, and is intended to support Human Resource managers in developing their recruitment policy. To highlight its utility, how the model can be applied to describe the recruitment process of the military is exemplified. Design/methodology/approach The model is developed based on an extensive search for published studies on employee recruitment and on the efforts of the members of the NATO Task Group on Recruitment and Retention of Military Personnel. Findings The model proposes that individuals' cognitions (beliefs, perceptions, expectations) influence job pursuit behavior, via influencing job pursuit attitudes and intentions. Individuals' cognitions are shaped by information about job and organizational characteristics. Job/organizational information can be obtained from sources that are or are not under the direct control of the organization. Finally, several inter‐individual difference variables (e.g. values, needs) are proposed to moderate the relationships depicted in the model. Originality/value The model extends previous recruitment models through its integrated focus on both the applicant's and organization's perspective, its recognition of the multiphased nature of recruitment, and its applicability to real‐life recruitment contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it