MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944414485 · doi:10.5430/jms.v10n3p27

The Impact of HR Analytics on the Training and Development Strategy - Private Sector Case Study in Lebanon

2019· article· en· W2944414485 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kamel barbar, Radwan Choughri, Moetaz Soubjaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAI and HR Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsTraining and developmentPrivate sectorBusinessData scienceManagementComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the impact of HR analytics on the training and development strategy of private organizations in Lebanon. It sought to test four hypotheses namely: There is a significant relationship between HR analytics use in large businesses and the development of employee skills; there is a significant relationship between HR analytics use in older businesses and the development of employee skills; there is a significant relationship between HR analytics use in large businesses and the retention of employees; and there is a significant relationship between HR analytics use in older businesses and the retention of employee. HR analytics has a significant influence on the development of employee skills and HR analytics has a significant influence on the development of HR training strategy. The study relied on a quantitative correlational research method with the help of an online questionnaire as the data collection instrument. A total of 302 respondents from the private sector in Lebanon returned valid responses to the questionnaire. The results validated each of the four hypotheses. They revealed that HR professionals rely on HR analytics to formulate employee development strategies. Data from HR analytics is used to predict potential outcomes of important HR and organization strategy decisions. In conclusion, the findings from this study imply that businesses should integrate HR professionals and HR analytics into the process of decision making and development strategy formulation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicAI and HR TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207