MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036660495 · doi:10.1177/1523422304266088

National Governance and Promising Practices in Workplace Learning: a Postindustrial Programmatic Framework in Canada

2004· article· en· W2036660495 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott M. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Developing Human Resources · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-industrial societyPublic relationsConstruct (python library)Context (archaeology)PhenomenonCorporate governanceHuman resourcesPolitical scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementManagementEngineeringEconomicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem and the solution. Implicitly or explicitly, the work of most human resource development (HRD) professionals contributes in some way to national purpose. Even in the private sector, a sense of national identity is not lacking in HRD products, processes, and programs, even though this phenomenon may not be readily apparent to either practitioners or researchers. Viewed through the practitioner’s lens of typical HRD interventions, national HRD (NHRD) as a construct favors a description of the historical evolution of current practices. In this article, this analysis is reversed so that national purpose and supporting policies are used as the lens to assess a possible future evolution of NHRD practices and programs in Canada that support workplace learning in a changing national context.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Developing Human ResourcesSame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207