MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171340812 · doi:10.1177/1534484304267833

Business Models for Training and Performance Improvement Departments

2004· article· en· W2171340812 on OpenAlexaff
Saul Carliner

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Development Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfit centerProfit (economics)BusinessKnowledge managementBusiness modelMarketingComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although typically applied to entire enterprises, the concept of business models applies to training and performance improvement groups. Business models are “the method by which firm[s] build and use [their] resources to offer…value.” Business models affect the types of projects, services offered, skills required, business processes, and type of respect accorded the training and performance improvement group. Six business models characterize training and performance improvement groups: (a) consulting firm—a group from outside an organization that advises on strategic and performance issues and implements them; (b) internal profit center—an internal group that offers services such as performance consulting and classroom and e-learning courses for a fee and makes a profit; (c) internal cost center—an internal group that provides classroom and e-learning courses and related administration at cost; (d) leveraged expertise—a small internal group of trainers who identify training needed, train subject matter experts to provide it, and handle related logistics; (e) development shop—an external group that develops training programs on contract; and (f) course marketers—an organization that builds courses.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Resource Development ReviewSame topicOutsourcing and Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207