MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040898268 · doi:10.1108/14691930210435633

Voluntary turnover: knowledge management – friend or foe?

2002· article· en· W2040898268 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Capital · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalHuman capitalBusinessWorkforceHuman resource managementPortfolioHuman resourcesKnowledge economyKnowledge workerTurnoverValuation (finance)Service (business)Competitive advantageFinanceMarketingPublic relationsEconomicsManagementEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of the knowledge era has affected all industries. Without exception, the Canadian financial services industry has transformed itself due to the knowledge‐intensive structure it possesses. However, high competition and career‐minded professionals have created a situation in which leading financial services firms are losing key human capital each day – capital that can and will be used against them in the modern, fast‐paced labour market. In the fight for the brightest senior executives, portfolio managers and fund administrators, human resource professionals must pay attention to the investments they are making in their employees through training and development, while monitoring reward and recognition programs, so that loss of intellectual capital is kept to a minimum. This study examines 19 Canadian financial service firms and their current human capital practices. Results show that while human resource managers are effectively managing the people in their organizations through training and development, performance reviews, and the effective management of fluctuating workforce demands. However, this study highlights the need for greater attention to be paid to the leveraging of human capital that exists within their knowledge‐intensive workforce. Furthermore, research findings strongly suggest the need to increase knowledge management behaviours such as the valuation and codification of organizational knowledge assets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.006

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.199 · 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