Workforce forecasting models: A systematic review
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 Workforce analytics involves using models that integrate internal and external data to predict future workforce and help organizations in any industry examine factors that have a prognostic effect. This paper assesses workforce modeling and prediction methods by examining their rationale, strengths, and constraints. It aims to identify enhancements for further development of workforce forecasting models and compares the capacity and reliability of different forecasting methods. Past and present modeling trends are described and critiqued based on their relevance to current requirements. Several approaches are reviewed, such as time series modeling and system dynamics simulation. Sensitivity analysis in models is assessed. The models are decomposed into three modes: supply‐based, demand‐based, and need‐based, which in some cases provide substantially different estimates of future workforce need. The chronological progression of models' development is analyzed. The articles are also classified based on the countries and the sectors that have paid great attention to workforce prediction research. Consideration of the use of workforce models and the inputs into such models is not within the scope of this paper.
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 | 0.032 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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