MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333561154 · doi:10.1177/0258042x0903400306

Workforce Rationalisation: Views from the Top

2009· article· en· W2333561154 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

VenueManagement and Labour Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalisationWorkforceFeelingPublic relationsBusinessPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Downsized, delayered, reduced or we call it “rationalisation” — the impact on the survivors as well as victims will be the same. By glorifying the process of downsizing, the feelings and emotions do not change. After collecting data from different levels of executives the authors wanted to listen to the views of the top managers or the implementers. In the study 34 managers belonging to the top level i.e. vice president, general manager etc. from HR as well as non-HR functions were extensively interviewed. The questions evolved were based on review of literature and tried to probe the effect of “workforce rationalisation” on the survivors as well as victims. In this paper, their responses have been discussed and certain conclusions arrived at.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.218 · 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