MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962502504 · doi:10.25035/pad.2019.01.006

Are Consensus Ratings of Functional Job Analysis Scales More Reliable than Ratings Made by Independent Raters?

2019· article· en· W2962502504 on OpenAlex
Greg A. Chung‐Yan, Aaron C. H. Schat, Steven F. Cronshaw

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

VenuePersonnel Assessment and Decisions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyJob analysisSocial psychologyJob performanceRating scaleRelevance (law)Scale (ratio)Applied psychologyJob satisfactionDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses an open research question in regard to a well-established and widely-used job analysis system, Functional Job Analysis (FJA): Are consensus ratings of the FJA scales more reliable than the independent scale ratings that are the norm in job analysis application and the related research literature? In our experimental study, we found that this is not the case: no significant difference is found between consensus and independent ratings of the FJA scales. The reasons for this finding are explored as well as its relevance to the validity of the FJA system. Implications for other work and job analysis systems are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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