MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104039420 · doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.555126

Perceived training benefits and training bundles: a Canadian study

2011· article· en· W2104039420 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Human Resource Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)ProductivityBundleWork (physics)PsychologyBusinessHuman resource managementApplied psychologyKnowledge managementMarketingEconomicsEngineeringComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine the link between training and the perceived contribution of training to enhanced productivity or cost reduction. Using data from 92 Canadian organizations, the results show that organizations with higher percentage of trained employees are likely to perceive training to be beneficial. In addition, the results indicate that perceived benefits of training are further enhanced by the presence of human resources management practices that either encourages employees to undertake training (the motivation bundle) and/or provides a systematic assessment of post-training effectiveness (the assessment bundle). The evidence however also shows that open climate as measured by autonomous work systems nullifies the benefits of training, suggesting that under such a structure, employees are unlikely to put in practice the skills they acquired during training.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.181 · 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