MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118696112 · doi:10.1177/1038411102040003255

The Role of Transaction Costs and Institutional Forces in the Outsourcing of Recruitment

2002· article· en· W2118696112 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutsourcingTransaction costBusinessAgency (philosophy)Knowledge process outsourcingIndustrial organizationFunction (biology)Institutional theoryAgency costPrincipal–agent problemService (business)Business administrationMarketingEconomicsFinanceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated reasons for the outsourcing of a core HRM function, recruitment. Drawing from transaction costs and institutional theories, it was hypothesised that the pressure to minimise transaction costs and the presence of industry trends towards outsourcing would be positively associated with the outsourcing of recruitment. Survey data were gathered from 1I 7 HR professionals in Australia. Both hypotheses were partially supported. Specifically, the outsourcing of recruitment activities was positively associated with trust in the agency supplying the recruitment service and with the need to reduce internal labour but not fixed costs. With regard to institutional theory, the outsourcing of recruitment was positively associated with mimetic but not coercive forces. The study concludes that although most assumptions about recruitment agency use are expressed in economic terms, in reality, HRM practices are also influenced by forces exerted by the institutional environment in which organisations are located.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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