MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899404514

La visión comparada: nuevos sistemas de selección de la alta función pública en las democracias avanzadas

2018· article· es· W2899404514 on OpenAlex
Clara Mapelli Marchena

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePertsonak eta Antolakunde Publikoak Kudeatzeko Euskal Aldizkaria = Revista Vasca de Gestión de Personas y Organizaciones Públicas · 2018
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

espanolEl articulo realiza un examen comparado de sistemas de seleccion en paises de nuestro entorno que constituyen un referente de buenas practicas en la gestion por competencias de los recursos humanos. Se parte para ello de un breve diagnostico de las debilidades de nuestros procesos selectivos y se describen experiencias comparadas que pueden orientar futuras reformas. En la fase de definicion de las necesidades y perfiles se describe la experiencia francesa de gestion planificada de efectivos y competencias, que ha dado lugar al Repertorio Interministerial de Profesiones del Estado y al Diccionario Interadministrativo de Competencias de las Profesiones del Estado. En la fase de reclutamiento se examinan las actuaciones dirigidas a reforzar la marca como empleador de la administracion federal canadiense, y los diferentes programas desarrollados en el Reino Unido para asegurar la diversidad social del empleo publico. En la fase de seleccion se analizan los modelos de Francia, Reino Unido, Belgica, Irlanda y las instituciones europeas, asi como el modo en el que estas experiencias podrian trasladarse a nuestros sistemas selectivos EnglishThe article carries out a comparative examination of selection systems in neighboring countries that consti-tute a reference of good practices in human resources competency-based management. We start with a brief diagnosis of the weaknesses of our selection processes and describe comparative experiences that can guide future reforms. In the definition phase of needs and profiles, the French experience of planned management of staff and competencies is described, which has led to the Interministerial Inventory of State-sector Jobs and the Interadministrative Dictionary of Competencies of the State-sector Jobs. The recruitment phase examines the actions aimed at strengthening the employer brand of the Canadian federal administration, and the different programs developed in the United Kingdom to ensure the social diversity of public employment. In the selection phase the models of France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Ireland and the European institutions are analyzed, as well as the way in which these experiences could be transferred to our selection systems euskaraArtikuluak hautapen-sistemen azterketa konparatua egiten du giza baliabideen gaitasunen araberako kudeaketan jarduera onak egiten dituzten inguruko herrialdeetan. Horretarako, gure hautapen-prozesuen ahultasunen diagnostiko laburra egiten da aurrena, eta etorkizuneko aldaketak bideratu ditzaketen esperientzia konparatuak azaltzen dira gero. Premiak eta profilak zehazteko fasean, Frantziak langileak eta gaitasunak modu planifikatuan kudeatzeko duen eskarmentua azaltzen da, Estatuko Lanbideen Ministerioarteko Errepertorioa eta Estatuko Lanbideen Gaitasunen Administrazioarteko Hiztegia ekarri baititu. Errekrutatzefasean, Kanadako administrazio federaleko enplegatzaile gisa marka indartzeari zuzendutako jarduerak aztertzen dira, bai eta Erresuma Batuko enplegu publikoan gizarte-aniztasuna egotea ziurtatzeko garatu diren hainbat programa aztertu ere. Hautapen-fasean, Frantziako, Erresuma Batuko, Belgikako, Irlandako eta Europako erakundeen ereduak aztertzen dira, eta esperientzia horiek gure hautapen-sistemetara ekartzeko moduak esploratzen

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.321 · 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