MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013242394 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n10p386

Balancing Performance by Human Resource Management Practices

2015· article· en· W2013242394 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Indra Devi Subramaniam

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardAnalytic hierarchy processHuman resource managementKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Organizational performancePerformance managementProcess managementHuman resourcesBusinessComputer scienceManagement scienceManagementOperations researchMarketingEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most famous concepts in strategic human resource management (SHRM) is human resource management (HRM) practices. Various researches by famous scholars have shown that HRM practices have the potential to affect organizational performance. Besides, performance of an organization has different aspects for example balanced scorecard (BSC) considers four perspectives for performance and they are Financial, Customer, Internal Process and Learning and Growth.However, companies aim to balance performance of the HRM practices based on their goals, so they need to know the intensity of implementing each practice. In this regard, this study attempts to forecast the impact of each group of practices on organizational performance (BSC’s perspectives) before implementation. For this purpose, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Logic will be used in combination. In other words, this combination will highlight the most proper group of HRM practices for the desired performance.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207