MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753301539 · doi:10.1177/1534484317725945

A Review of the Literature on Structured On-the-Job Training and Directions for Future Research

2017· review· en· W2753301539 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

VenueHuman Resource Development Review · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationOn-the-job trainingScopusResearch methodologyHuman resourcesConceptual frameworkKnowledge managementResource (disambiguation)Engineering ethicsSociologyManagement sciencePsychologyManagementEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This literature review presents the current state of research on structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) and proposes a research agenda for future research activities on this form of workplace learning. In the past three decades, S-OJT has emerged as an integral part of human resource development practice. The literature review seeks to identify the nature of S-OJT as it is described in the literature, categorize the existing research and practices of S-OJT, provide overview of three dimensions (audience, location, and conclusion) of each study involving S-OJT, and develop a conceptual framework for conducting research on S-OJT. Online databases including Business Source Premier & Complete, Academic Source Premier, Scopus, Primo Articles, JSTOR, and ERIC were used for the reviews. The results of this literature review provide a theoretical framework for understanding S-OJT as a means to promote future research and theory building.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.407
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.104 · 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