MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114652046 · doi:10.1190/1.2748484

Wanted—a few good men: The war for talent comes to the mining industry

2007· article· en· W2114652046 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Doggett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A seminal study by McKinsey and Co. in 1998 examined the issue of the impending shortage of talent in U.S. and global businesses. They predicted that significant resources would need to be invested in the recruitment, training, and retention of the human capital that provides competitive advantage to firms. For those of us in the resource sector with enough seniority or enough courage to reflect on the state of the world in 1998, pretty much the last thing on our minds would be where to find sufficient talent to sustain and grow our business. This time was the beginning of a long downturn in the industry where few new recruits entered the business, and many experienced people were forced out. A 1999 exit survey of graduates from U.S. universities offering programs in geology or mining carried out by the American Geological Institute suggested that fewer than 200 new graduates in the entire country planned to work in the mineral exploration or mining business.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207