MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094519863 · doi:10.1080/01900692.2011.625179

Organizational Learning Facilitators in the Canadian Public Sector

2012· article· en· W2094519863 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacques Barette, Louise Lemyre, Wayne Corneil, Nancy Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational learningPublic sectorConfirmatory factor analysisKnowledge managementOrganization developmentBusinessOrganizational commitmentOrganizational cultureOrder (exchange)Public relationsLearning organizationPsychologyService (business)Political scienceMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizational learning (OL) is considered to be a central element in the renewal of Canada's federal public service. What factors facilitate OL in this sector? How can these factors be measured? This study aims to answer these questions by describing the development of an instrument designed to produce a valid measure of the organizational learning facilitators (OLFs) relevant to public sector organizations. The confirmatory analysis indicated a 6-factor solution with 5 first-order factors (“knowledge acquisition and transformation,” “learning support,” “earning culture,” “learning leadership, and “strategic management”) and one second-order factor (“learning environment”). Results indicate that the OLF measure is a significant predictor of organizational outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Public AdministrationSame topicOrganizational Learning and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207