Persistent innovation and the role of human resource management practices, work organization, and strategy
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
Abstract This study makes a theoretical contribution by taking a persistent characteristics approach to explore the relationship between human resource management practices and innovation outcomes at the workplace-level. Innovators are categorized by the degree to which they are successful at achieving new product/processes and/or improved product/processes outcomes year over year. The human resource management practices explored include the use of highly qualified personnel, and skill-enhancing, motivation-enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing sub-bundles of practices. Further, work organization practices are also explored including integration and collaboration, introduction of organizational changes, and the use of technology. The findings indicate workplaces that set strategic goals related to innovation, that motivate their employees, that create opportunity for their employees to act, and that make greater use of technology tend to be more persistent innovators. These findings can contribute to the development of government policy, which seeks to improve innovation performance outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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