College recruiting using social media: how to increase applicant reach and reduce recruiting costs
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
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative approach to traditional campus recruiting, using the social media. Specifically, we propose a three-step strategy using Facebook to attract and recruit college graduates. Design/methodology/approach – In Step 1, employers use Facebook to attract as many target students as possible to an employer’s Fan page. In Step 2, employers actively engage with students to enhance their employer brand as a prospective employer. In Step 3, employers initiate a call-to-action to encourage students to act upon a job opportunity and apply for the position. Findings – Social media recruiting can payoff in several ways: First, employers have the advantage of speed through social media recruiting. Second, employers also have broad and frequent access to college students. Employers will also reduce their overall college recruiting costs and lastly, employers enhance their overall employment branding through the use of Facebook for college recruiting. Practical implications – Given the impending retirement of baby boomers, there is an urgent need to recruit college graduates in large numbers. Historically, college recruiting has been the preferred channel; however, few students attend campus career fairs or find information sessions and their campus career centers helpful. As an alternative, employers should consider using social media as a recruiting tool to attract and recruit college graduates. Originality/value – Social media recruiting has the potential to help smaller employers stand out among larger employers, reach out to a larger pool of candidates, speed up the recruitment process and reduce overall recruitment costs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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