MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072645002 · doi:10.1108/01409170310783592

Global aviation human resource management: contemporary compensation and benefits practices

2003· article· en· W2072645002 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Appelbaum, Brenda M. Fewster

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Research News · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersDeltaFord Motor Company
KeywordsBusinessAuditHuman resource managementAviationMarketingHuman resourcesCompetitive advantageCompetence (human resources)Core competencyGlobeKnowledge managementManagementEconomicsComputer scienceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The commercial airline is an extremely competitive, safety‐sensitive, high technology service industry. People, employees and customers, not products and machines, must be the arena of an organisation’s core competence. The implications are vast and pervasive affecting no less than the organisation’s structure, strategy, culture, and numerous operational activities. Completed by 13 respondents (executives), this audit presents a series of select findings of a human resource management audit carried out in 2001‐2 and contains extensive data on airlines from nine countries from around the globe. The conclusion drawn from these three bodies of work is that, with the exception of a handful of high performing airlines, the industry as awhole continues to function as per a traditional, top‐down, highly divisionalised, industrial model of operations and governance. This model is manifestly inappropriate in such a highly knowledge‐based service market as the airline industry. HRM expertise in general and compensation and benefits in particular are required now,more than ever, to spearhead the strategic development of a customer‐centric, learning‐oriented workforce that is capable of adapting quickly to the strategic goals and change imperatives facing the airline industry.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Research NewsSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207