MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072696309 · doi:10.1177/1059601107313310

Influence of Compensation Strategies in Canadian Technology-Intensive Firms on Organizational and Human Resources Performance

2008· article· en· W2072696309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michel Tremblay, Denis Chênevert

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup & Organization Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityBusinessCompensation (psychology)Human resourcesIndustrial organizationWork (physics)Survey data collectionMarketingEconomicsManagementPsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the role of technological intensity in the choice of compensation policies and the influence of such policies on organization (market, productivity) and human resources performance (turnover, work climate, discretionary efforts). Using a survey of 252 Canadian firms, the authors show that technological intensity has a significant influence on compensation policies. A second survey of 128 Canadian organizations also demonstrates that technological intensity has a significant moderating effect on the association between several compensation policies and both human resources and organizational performance. More specifically, the authors find that greater emphasis on group performance plans and market pay is positively associated with productivity in high-technology firms. Extensive use of individual performance pay plans in high-technology firms is positively associated with turnover, whereas the use of group performance plans is negatively related to turnover.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroup & Organization ManagementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207