MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332427718 · doi:10.1177/1523422314559806

Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research

2014· article· en· W2332427718 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

VenueAdvances in Developing Human Resources · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial network analysisKnowledge managementField (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)Social capitalContext (archaeology)Data scienceSocial network (sociolinguistics)Computer scienceSociologySocial scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial mediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Problem Many phenomena in human resource development (HRD) research unfold in the social context. Most of the variables HRD researchers study, even if these are individual-level variables, are inevitably affected by the formal and informal network of actors in which an individual finds oneself. This relational influence is commonly ignored in studies of performance, learning, change, and other questions. The Solution Social networks analysis (SNA) is a methodology that makes it possible to take the relational aspect into account. It allows researchers to model the social capital of an actor and examine how connectivity and position in the network interacts with or influences important outcomes. The Stakeholders Researchers in the field of HRD will be able to uncover a wealth of new information and gain a new perspective by including SNA in their toolkit. This article provides the researchers with an introduction to the methods and provides suggestions for their application.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.357 · 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