Talent Management Programmes at British, American and Canadian Universities: Comparative Study
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 The article deals with the peculiarities of talent management programmes implementation at the top British, American and Canadian universities. The essence of the main concepts of research - talent and talent management - has been revealed. Talent management is referred to as the systematic attraction, identification, development, engagement, retention and deployment of those individuals who are of particular value to an organization, either in view of their “high potential” for the future or because they are fulfilling business/ operation-critical roles. The factors that drive the development of talent management at the universities have been defined. The benefits that can be obtained as a result of talent management programmes implementation in higher education institutions have been pointed out. The differences in talent management programmes implementation at the universities of Great Britain, the USA and Canada have been found out. These differences depend mainly on the human resources policy of the institution represented in its strategic plan. It has been concluded that most top British and American higher education institutions run talent development programmes, but the target categories and forms of their implementation greatly differ. Canadian universities in the human resources policy focus on professional development of staff and faculty, but do not have special talent management programmes. Progressive conceptual ideas of foreign experience that can be used in practice of Ukrainian universities have been considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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