MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137078348 · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798180

High-Involvement Management and Workforce Reduction: Competitive Advantage or Disadvantage?

2006· article· en· W2137078348 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

VenueAcademy of Management Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLayoffProductivityWorkforceDisadvantageWork (physics)BusinessLabour economicsCompetitive advantageJob satisfactionMarketingDemographic economicsPublic relationsEconomicsManagementUnemploymentEconomic growthEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although interest in the workplace trends of downsizing and high-involvement work practices continues to grow, research examining the intersection between them has been limited. In this study, we examine (1) how layoffs moderate the relationship between high-involvement work practices and productivity, and (2) how continued investments in these work practices throughout layoff periods maintain workforce productivity. Findings indicate a negative relationship between high-involvement work practices and productivity in workplaces with higher layoff rates. However, workplaces that continue investments in high-involvement work practices are able to avoid productivity losses, as compared to workplaces that discontinue such investments.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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