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 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

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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