MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091772568 · doi:10.3917/grhu.080.0022

Les tactiques d'influence ascendante des DRH

2011· article· fr· W2091772568 on OpenAlexaff
José Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de gestion des ressources humaines · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude examine les comportements d’influence ascendants de 41 directeurs des ressources humaines (DRH), c’est-à-dire lorsqu’ils exercent de l’influence vers leur PDG/DG. Les résultats révèlent qu’ils font usage d’un grand nombre de stratégies d’influence, qu’ils utilisent davantage de tactiques douces que de tactiques dures ou ni douces ni dures et procèdent selon une logique d’analyse coûts/bénéfices lorsqu’ils font leurs choix de tactiques. En outre, les résultats montrent qu’ils exercent de l’influence avec efficacité auprès de leur PDG ou DG.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.061 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de gestion des ressources humainesSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207