MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009374909 · doi:10.1108/itp-06-2019-0290

Key competencies for big data analytics professions: a multimethod study

2020· article· en· W3009374909 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

VenueInformation Technology and People · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityBig dataBusiness analyticsKnowledge managementAnalyticsPublic relationsPsychologyBusinessData scienceMarketingComputer sciencePolitical scienceBusiness model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to identify the precise competencies that employers are seeking for big data analytics professions and whether higher education big data programs enable students to acquire the competencies. Design/methodology/approach This study utilizes a multimethod approach involving three data sources: online job postings, executive interviews and big data programs at universities and colleges. Text mining analysis guided by a holistic competency theoretical framework was used to derive insights into the required competencies. Findings We found that employers are seeking workers with strong functional and cognitive competencies in data analytics, computing and business combined with a range of social competencies and specific personality traits. The exact combination of competencies required varies with job levels and tasks. Executives clearly indicate that workers rarely possess the competencies and they have to provide additional training. Research limitations/implications A limitation is our inability to capture workers' perspectives to determine the extent to which they think they have the necessary competencies. Practical implications The findings can be used by higher educational institutions to design programs to better meet market demand. Job seekers can use it to focus on the types of competencies they need to advance their careers. Policymakers can use it to focus policies and investments to alleviate skills shortages. Industry and universities can use it to strengthen their collaborations. Social implications Much closer collaborations among public institutions, educational institutions, industry, and community organizations are needed to ensure training programs evolve with the evolving need for skills driven by dynamic technological changes. Originality/value This is the first study on this topic to adopt a multimethod approach incorporating the perspectives of the key stakeholders in the supply and demand of skilled workers. It is the first to employ text mining analysis guided by a holistic competency framework to derive unique insights.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.152 · 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