MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074827063 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v4n1p105

Personnel Selection Method Based on Personnel-Job Matching

2013· article· en· W2074827063 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatching (statistics)DisadvantageSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceJob satisfactionPersonnel selectionSeekersFuzzy logicHuman resource managementOperations researchKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceManagementEconomicsMathematicsStatisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existing personnel selection decisions in practice are based on the evaluation of job seeker's human capital, and it may be difficult to make personnel-job matching and make each party satisfy. Therefore, this paper puts forward a new personnel selection method by consideration of bilateral matching. Starting from the employment thoughts of “satisfy”, the satisfaction evaluation indicator system of each party are constructed. The multi-objective optimization model is given according to the job seekers satisfaction and jobs satisfaction. By the method of fuzzy multi-objective optimization model, based on the thought of “disadvantage” is as shorter as better, the selection results are obtained. The effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed method is illustrated by an example.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · 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