MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007546436 · doi:10.7202/050996ar

Mending Fences, Building Bridges: The Effect of Relationship by Objectives on Conflict

2005· article· en· W2007546436 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert Hebdon, Maurice Mazerolle

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunction (biology)Human resourcesPerceptionHuman resource managementResource (disambiguation)PsychologyPublic relationsBusinessKnowledge managementManagementSociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade, researchers have developed new theoretical approaches to human resources. The growing preoccupation with the human resource function in the organization has been praised publicly by practitioners. Over the years, this preoccupation has been responsible for changing behavioral patterns as well as human resource management activities. In 1978, the author conducted a study investigating the human resource function, based on the perceptions of directors and human resource managers. The present study considers the following question: "Have the human resource function in the workplace and the general and specific perceptions of directors and human resource managers evolved over the last decade?" Three specific dimensions stand out here: the notion of the evolution of human resource in itself; the evolution in the perceptions of the participants; and the time-lag between theory and practice. From these dimensions emerge three hypotheses which revolve around three elements: participants, time and space. This study focuses on the participants' perceptions of the importance of the HR function and covers a period of ten years, 1978-1989. The study establishes a link between the theoretical evolution of the HR function and its applications. The results of this study are based on the comments of directors and human resource managers in organizations with 200 or more employees. These organizations are located in the province of Quebec and belong to the private secondary sector. The participants completed a questionnaire on general variables, such as the period of time devoted to human resources activities, the influence-authority of the parties involved, interdepartmental communication, the participants' involvement in organizational activities, the right to information and consultation. Questions were also asked on specific variables such as planning of personnel, recruitment in human resources, training and development of human resources. In our 1978 study, as in that of 1989, information was collected from workplaces representative of the population studied. The profiles of both directors and human resource managers have developed at the same rate as the organizations which employ them. In the 1989 study, however, participants are slightly younger and the academie level of the human resource manager is superior to that of his predecessors. Statistical analysis of the collected data allows us to assert that the human resource function in Quebec, including both general and specific characteristics, has progressed very slowly during the last decade. If both structure and activities of this function have increased, it has not, for all that, become more integrated in the evolution of the organization. The analysis also shows that the perception of all participants is more or less the same in 1989 as it was in 1978. Moreover, integration of the human resource function theoretical concepts did not follow the growth rate expected by both researchers and administrators. Does this mean that, in the last decade, actual developments in human resources lagged behind the level of discourse? An affirmative answer to this question would be too simple since there has nonetheless been some evolution of the human resource function. We are more concerned with the rate of its evolution. In conclusion, the author is considering the possible causes of this reality, and is looking for means to accelerate the evolutionary processes of this function.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicOrganizational Downsizing and RestructuringFrench-language works237,207