MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066546899 · doi:10.1108/13527600310797540

Cultural implications for the appraisal process

2003· article· en· W2066546899 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Groeschl

Bibliographic record

VenueCross Cultural Management An International Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformance appraisalProcess (computing)Adaptation (eye)Context (archaeology)Knowledge managementValue (mathematics)Interpretation (philosophy)Critical appraisalHuman resource managementPerceptionAppraisal theoryProcess managementPsychologyManagement sciencePublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial psychologyManagementEngineeringMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to numerous cross‐cultural and comparative management studies, management perceptions and approaches differ across cultures, in particular, the management of human resources (HR). This article presents a number of implications for the appraisal process and its different functions and characteristics when applied within a cross‐cultural context. Culture is identified as an important factor influencing the understanding and interpretation of the appraisal process, its development, implementation, and other appraisal related elements and functions. Challenges for practitioners include the adaptation of HR procedures and practices to local cultures; managers to be aware of and sensitive to employees holding different cultural value and belief systems which might lead them to approach HR tools such as the appraisal process differently. Managers also need to focus on the objectives of the appraisal process and be open to pursuing different routes to get there, depending upon cultural circumstances.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross Cultural Management An International JournalSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207