MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994848080 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.028

The effect of talent management on innovation: Evidence from Jordanian Banks

2019· article· en· W2994848080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raed Ibrahim Mohamad Ibrahim, Ghassan Issa Alomari

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingVariance (accounting)Talent managementProduct (mathematics)BusinessMarketingProduct innovationSample (material)Middle managementKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Human capitalInnovation managementBusiness administrationEconomicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of talent management has received great attention from scholars and practitioners. Despite this, there are few studies associated with the relationship between innovation and talent management. This study invokes human capital, McGregor's X and Y, social exchange and employee attraction theories to examine the link between talent management, product innovation, process innovation and marketing innovation. A questionnaire is developed to collect the data from the study sample consisted of (120) employees in top and middle management positions. Collated data is analyzed with variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Results from PLS-SEM suggest that talent management had a significant and positive impact on product, process and marketing innovations. Supplemental ANOVA analyses also reveal that organizational tenure was a strong determinant for talent management as well as product, process and marketing innovations.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207