MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185816106 · doi:10.19030/iber.v9i11.31

Return On Investment For Background Screening

2010· article· en· W2185816106 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

VenueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReturn on investmentProductivityAbsenteeismInvestment (military)Value (mathematics)Rate of returnBusinessActuarial scienceOperations managementEconomicsFinanceComputer scienceMicroeconomicsProduction (economics)ManagementEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-employment screening has increased in recent years; however, only in the US does the percentage of new employees screened approach 50 percent. This paper examines the return on investment of background screening to display to readers the savings offered by such a simple outlay. The paper breaks down the costs associated with a bad hire in terms of direct and indirect costs. The specific costs analyzed are Productivity, Morale, Customer Value, Theft, Absenteeism, Accidents, Management Time, Termination, Recruitment, and Training. In each area, this paper assigns a theoretical value to each cost and puts them together to calculate the total ROI.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
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 score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.219 · 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