MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133769281 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.864

Human resource configurations: Investigating fit with the organizational context.

2008· article· en· W2133769281 on OpenAlexaff
Soo Min Toh, Frederick P. Morgeson, Michael A. Campion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)BundleOrganizational commitmentOrganizational effectivenessPsychologyKnowledge managementHuman resourcesHuman resource managementOrganizational structureResource (disambiguation)Sample (material)BusinessOrganizational behavior and human resourcesOrganizational learningCompetitive advantageSocial psychologyMarketingManagementEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated how key organizational contextual factors relate to bundles of human resource (HR) practices. In a two-phase study of a sample of 661 organizations representing a full range of industries and organizational size, the authors found that organizations use 1 of 5 HR bundles: cost minimizers, contingent motivators, competitive motivators, resource makers, and commitment maximizers. In addition, the authors showed that the organizations that use a given type of HR bundle may be distinguished by the organizational values they pursue and their organizational structure, thus suggesting that HR choices are related to the context within which organizations operate.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations195
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207