Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators and outcomes: a qualitative study among human resource management practitioners
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
Recently the role of human resource management (HRM) practitioners has become more professionalized and more strategic. Consequently, HRM practitioners have had to develop new competencies in areas such as change management, influence and technology. Workplace learning, which is important for professional development, is examined for 13 HRM practitioners in government, healthcare, post-secondary education and business organizations in the Halifax Regional Municipality area. Of particular interest were learning strategies, barriers to and facilitators of learning and outcomes of learning. To obtain rich data, practitioners were interviewed face to face using an interview guide. Results indicated that these practitioners are mostly similar to other professional groups in terms of workplace learning, with a few key differences. The similarities and differences are presented, and implications of these findings for HRM practitioners and future directions for research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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