Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was intended to examine three aspects of interviewing. The first was an exploration for any systematic differences between ratings given by interviewers in actual face-to-face interviews and ratings given by group (N=3) and individual observers of video-taped interviews. The second aspect was a comparison between group (N=3) and individual ratings in terms of mean variable ratings, reliability and halo error. The third section sought attitudes of interviewees and rating viewers of the utility of videotape in employment interviews. The interviewees for the first and third aspects of this study were thirty-four fourth-year Commerce students from the University of British Columbia. The video-tape viewers and interviewers were thirty members of the Bank of Montreal's managerial staff. For the second section the interviewees were three fourth-year Commerce students from the University of British Columbia and the video-tape viewers were one hundred and eighty-five Commerce undergraduate students also from the University of British Columbia. The viewers and interviewers were requested to evaluate interviewees along thirteen dimensions and to decide whether or not to call back the interviewees for further interviews. Minimal differences were found between interviewer and group observer ratings while individual observer ratings were found to be uniformly and significantly higher than both interviewer and group observer ratings. Reliability estimates were generally moderate to low with no significant differences existing between group and individual ratings. Halo error was possibly a contributing factor for group and individual ratings. The attitudes of interviewees toward the use of video-tape in interviewing were quite favorable. The viewers, on the other hand, displayed only a moderate enthusiasm. In the discussion, attention was given to methods for revising the Bank of Montreal's interview ratings form and interviewing procedure.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".