MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020892614 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.4.040

Factors affecting human resources development of SMEs: Evidence from the fourth Industrial revolution in Vietnam

2020· article· en· W3020892614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nguyễn Văn Song, Phung Tran My Hanh, Mai Thanh Cuc, Nguyen Cong Tiep

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicImpulse Buying and Technology Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessHuman resourcesIndustrial organizationEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the factors affecting human resource for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Vietnam by using survey data from labors who worked in SMEs in Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. It then empirically examines the relationship between human resource development and a range of factors, using Exploratory Factor analysis and Multivariate regression analysis. The results indicate that six factors were more strongly affected SMEs human resource development in Industry 4.0 such as SMEs human resource development policy, System of training and vocational institutions, The development of science and technology, State and provincial policies for human resource development for SMEs, Business manager and Individual employee. In Vietnam, State and provincial policies for SMEs human resource development is the most influential factor on human resource development in Industry 4.0.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.117 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicImpulse Buying and Technology ImpactsFrench-language works237,207