MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297554898 · doi:10.1108/tcj-07-2015-0027

How do you solve a problem like Lucinda?

2016· article· en· W2297554898 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Wilson-Mah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe CASE Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGossipMisconductResistance (ecology)Context (archaeology)DisciplinePublic relationsHuman resource managementPsychologyIndustrial and organizational psychologyOrganizational behaviorSociologySocial psychologyManagementPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synopsis A room attendant in a small hotel with approximately 63 employees undermines her supervisors and disregards authority in deliberate defiance of company policies, rules, regulations and procedures. Disrespect is shown in several behaviours that include interfering with the work of other employees, spreading rumours, gossiping to other room attendants and complaining about unfair treatment. Research methodology This case was field researched and the company and individuals are disguised. Relevant courses and levels This case is suitable for third- or fourth-year undergraduate students. Within human resource management it is suited for use in a course or series of classes on employee relations or performance management. The case could also be used for an organizational behaviour course to explore conflict and struggle in organizations and the range of passive and active resistance practices that occur. In this particular case the context of women and minorities working in low-skilled roles could be examined. Theoretical bases In advance of this case students should have a background in performance management theory and practice, disciplinary systems and practice and the behaviours associated with workplace resistance, insubordination and misconduct.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe CASE JournalSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207