MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464174763 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n7p105

Assessing the Impact of Electronic Human Resource Management on Creation of Organizational Agility: A Study in the Bushehr Banks, Iran

2016· article· en· W2464174763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fakhriyeh Hamidianpour, Majid Esmaeilpour, Habibeh Firoozi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman resourcesHuman resource managementBusinessKnowledge managementOrganizational behavior and human resourcesPerformance appraisalConceptual modelOrganizational performanceOperations managementProcess managementManagementMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agility is a series of capabilities and competencies, which can cause survival and growth of the organization in business environment. One of the approaches that help organizations to enhance agility is electronic human resource management (E-HRM) approach. The main objective of the present study is finding an answer for this issue that how one can use E-HRM approach to develop organizational agility. In this study that has been conducted using survey method, after review of foreign and domestic research literature and construction of conceptual model, a questionnaire would be provided and distributed among employees of bank branches of Bushehr City in Iran and finally, collected data from 315 questionnaires would be analyzed using structural equation modeling method. Obtained results from the study confirm the presented conceptual model and indicate that using electronic learning of human resources, electronic payment of human resources, human resources maintenance and electronic performance appraisal of human resources and also electronic human resource management (E-HRM) can affect organizational agility significantly in confidence level of 99%. In addition, effect of variables of Electronic employment of human resources and human resource communications on organizational agility has not been confirmed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207