A Quarter-Century Review of Human Resource Management in the U.S.: The Growth in Importance of the International Perspective
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
The past quarter century has witnessed many developments in the research and practice of managing human resources in the United States. In this article, we briefly describe two major areas in which these developments have been unfolding: strategic human resource management and international human resource management. Across these two areas of activity, HRM in the U. S. has evolved to encompass a greater appreciation of issues associated with: the systemic character of human resource management, the role that context plays in shaping HR policies and practices, the importance of demonstrating the effectiveness of HR policies and practices, the value of addressing the concerns of multiple stakeholders, the need for partnership in managing human resources, the complexity of managing human resources in multinational enterprises, and the challenge of developing theories and frameworks that provide new and useful insights about how to address all of these issues. We conclude with a brief summary and our thoughts about the future of HRM in the U.S. context and the continued importance of the international perspective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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