Building a workplace of choice: Using the work environment to attract and retain top talent
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, organisations around the globe are operating in an unprecedented, highly competitive seller’s market. The global workforce is now more mobile than ever before, meaning that companies are no longer simply competing for talent nationally, but rather on an international level. The Canadian Federal Government, like most Government organisations, simply cannot compete with private industry in the area of salaries, stock options or perks. In addition, the impending wave of retirements that threatens to devastate the Federal employment ranks has caused us to look to the work environment as a means of attracting and retaining the top talent we need. This paper examines the characteristics of the different generations that currently make up our workforce and discusses what they, as well as new recruits, expect from their employers and from their work environments. It also delves into the role the workplace plays in recruitment and retention and the way in which it can be used to improve an organisation’s corporate identity. It then looks at what types of perks are actually valued most by employees, and explores how the physical environment can be aligned to help shape a company’s organisational culture and facilitate the communication, teamwork and creativity that are necessary to sustain a culture of continual innovation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it