MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783834742 · doi:10.1108/tcj-02-2017-0011

Systems breakdown in recruitment at McCune Contracting

2018· article· en· W2783834742 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassan Wafai, Lee Ann Waines, Rebecca Wilson-Mah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe CASE Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingAppealProcess (computing)Service (business)Information systemOperations managementComputer scienceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synopsis Rachel Banning was assigned a new role in HR with the responsibility to update recruitment and orientation systems to meet the rapidly growing demand for manpower at McCune Contracting, an oilfield services provider in Alberta, Canada. McCune’s industry peers were competing to attract the same skilled employees, within a relatively small talent pool. The HR team was only a few short weeks away from the upcoming peak “turnaround season” when they would be expected to recruit and deploy 500 new temporary workers for their clients’ sites. Banning knew she had to take immediate actions to fix as many of the systems issues as possible and to eventually set the team up with a more permanent solution for systems integration. Research methodology The authors had access to McCune Contracting to complete field research for this case. Relevant courses and levels The case is designed for business students at both graduate and undergraduate levels. The case can be used in operations management courses to discuss the topic of process analysis and operations strategy or in management information system courses as a comprehensive case study for use at the end of the course. The case might particularly appeal to students who have worked in human resources management areas or the service industry. Theoretical bases Theoretical underpinnings include a process view of organizational performance, internal supplier and internal customer orientation, performance improvement, information systems integration and value chain analysis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe CASE JournalSame topicERP Systems Implementation and ImpactFrench-language works237,207