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

Business Models for Training and Performance Improvement Departments

2004· article· en· W2171340812 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

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
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