MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885991071

Human Resource Management a Function of the Past: A Content Analysis of the First Edition Canadian Introductory Human Resource Management Textbooks

2012· article· en· W2885991071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. George Fitzgerald, Albert J. Mills

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman resource managementFunction (biology)Resource management (computing)Content analysisHuman resource management systemResource (disambiguation)Library scienceComputer scienceKnowledge managementSociologySocial scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current day Canadian Human Resource Management (HRM) textbooks had their beginnings during 1973-1984, when a number of United States (U.S.) authored and focused textbooks were adapted (or ‘Canadianised’) for the Canadian higher educational market, and one or two original Canadian texts were developed. The fundamental structure of the first Canadian edition introductory HRM textbooks continue to be adapted within educational and business environments three decades later, illustrating their significant influence on the education and discipline of HRM in Canada. This paper examines the intentions and approaches taken by the first Canadian textbook authors and their attempts to address what they saw as a relative lack of research to deal with issues facing Canadian personnel and the lack of material representative of the Canadian context, values, culture and working people. The paper reports on the results of a content analysis approach and compares each author’s intentions with the actual written content to reveal that despite author intentions the textbooks contained limited Canadian research, theories, context and culture. Also noted was the contents were focused on a narrowly functional perspective rooted in American theoretical developments that served to exacerbate the problem of Canadian content and perspective. This functional framework laid the foundation for current Canadian HRM textbooks.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0150.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207