An Analysis on the Effectiveness of Team Building: The Impact on Human Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scope of discussion in this study includes the aspect of human resource management and administration that focuses on the effectiveness of team building in producing employees who are skilled, innovative, creative, competitive and alert to the needs of the organization. In this context, we evaluate and analyze the effectiveness of the function of human resource team building by looking at three key factors: Task Oriented Roles Factor, Relationship Oriented Roles Factor and Self Oriented Roles Factor. In this descriptive study, about 150 ancillary staffs at the National University of Malaysia have been randomly identified as the respondents. This study attempts to analyse the extent in which the effective function of team building may be factored upon the sheer spirit, job motivation and high-level skill of these employees which may indirectly reflect the status and strength of the aspect of human resource management. The data of this study are analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program (version 17.0 for Windows). It is hoped that the publication of this study will contribute ideas and opinions towards improving and consolidating the function of human resource development that is in line with the mission and vision of the university as well as the government in general, in creating skilled and effective civil servants.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".