Using a Computational Model to Understand Possible Sources of Skews in Distributions of Job Performance
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 typical assumption that performance is distributed normally has come under question in recent years (e.g., O'Boyle & Aguinis, 2012). This paper uses a dynamic, computational model of performance‐as‐results to examine possible sources of such distributions. That is, building off the classic model of job performance (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976), components of a dynamic model are examined in 4 separate experiments using Monte Carlo simulations. The experiments indicate that positively skewed distributions can arise from pure luck, multiplicative combinations of factors where 1 of those factors has a zero origin, Matthew effects associated with learning, and feedback effects of performance on resource allocation policies by external agents. The results are discussed in terms of explanations for positively skewed performance distributions and the use and expansion of the computational model for examining dynamic performance more generally.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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