MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007954480 · doi:10.1177/108056990206500403

Promoting Innovation in the Workplace: The Internal Proposal

2002· article· en· W2007954480 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Communication Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Work (physics)Public relationsPsychologyPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's managers expect employees to be able to contribute not just their labor but also their analysis and ideas, yet little training is provided for writing the major document that contains such ideas: the internal proposal. Business and academic textbooks, as well as academic courses, focus almost entirely on external propos als, which are most appropriate in areas such as consulting and sales. The internal proposal (also known as the justification report), on the other hand, is applicable for almost any student's future career. It provides an opportunity for students to develop the competence and confidence to express their ideas in the workplace, encouraging them to demonstrate awareness and initiative, utilize problem-solving skills, and create a persuasive strategy. Because students are motivated to com plete this real-world assignment, it also inspires some of their best work.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · 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