Multisource assessment programs in organizations: An insider's perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study is an overview of multisource assessment (MSA) practices in organizations. As a performance evaluation process, MSA can take various forms and can be complex for an organization to use. Although the literature on MSA is extensive, little information exists on how these programs are perceived by the individuals responsible for their implementation and maintenance. The purpose of this study was twofold: to describe the current MSA practices used in organizations and to assess the issues associated with implementation and management of these practices from the perspective of the individual responsible for managing an MSA program. One hundred one companies located in Canada were surveyed for the study; almost half of these organizations (43 percent) were using MSA. Interviews of managers responsible for MSA in various organizations and some archival data on these organizations were the main source of data for the study. The study revealed that the use of MSA differs widely from one company to another. In addition, results show that, once implemented, MSA requires a number of adjustments. The source of these adjustments centered on employee resistance, lack of strategic purpose for MSA, poor design of the instrument, and problems with the technology used to support MSA. These results are discussed and a proposed research agenda is outlined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it