MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726975955 · doi:10.20286/jeas.v1i1.5

Competition Forces Attack Management by New Ways of Managing Conflicts

2016· article· en· W2726975955 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasser Fegh-hi Farahmand

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Development and Regional Competitiveness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAsset (computer security)Human resource managementCompetition (biology)Public relationsInternationalizationHuman resourcesAffect (linguistics)PejorativeKnowledge managementPolitical scienceManagementSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The form and structure of an organization's human resources system can affect employee motivation levels in several ways. Organizations can adopt various new ways of managing conflicts human ware empowerment practices to enhance employee satisfaction. This paper considers the new ways of managing conflicts. The strategic importance of workers is discussed and their interaction, as an asset, with other important organization assets. The basic methodologies for workers are then explained and their limitations are considered. The new ways of managing conflicts revolution moves recording and analysis activities that traditionally professional performance lines of activities focused to high operational content. The scientific and new ways of managing conflicts progress, growth and internationalization of markets, processors are processes in which the accounting profession plays a leading role of new ways of managing conflicts. There has been a longstanding bifurcation between the two with emotions labeled in pejorative terms and devalued in matters concerning the workplace. Keywords : technology management, new ways of managing conflicts human ware, technology factor

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0200.018
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Journal of Engineering and Applied SciencesSame topicEconomic Development and Regional CompetitivenessFrench-language works237,207