MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893053220 · doi:10.1177/1534484318798533

Performance Management: A Scoping Review of the Literature and an Agenda for Future Research

2018· review· en· W2893053220 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 · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman resource managementProcess (computing)Performance appraisalHuman resourcesField (mathematics)Knowledge managementPerformance managementPsychologySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceProcess managementManagement scienceManagementBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance management (PM), in all its guises, occurs across all organizations whether formally through an official organizational process or informally through daily dialogue. Given its inherent importance to the field of Human Resource Development (HRD), we conducted a scoping review of the PM literature over a period of more than 11 years, uncovering 230 articles from 41 different journals. Our review suggests that the PM literature explores the more process driven aspect of PM, namely performance appraisal (PA), as opposed to investigating PM in a truly holistic way. Throughout, we suggest a series of research gaps which, if filled, will help both HRD scholars and practitioners better understand how employee performance can be effectively managed in the future.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.288 · 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