Positivities of Globalization in the Domain of Developing the Human Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at clearing what globalization left of positive effects in the domain of human resources, the study had been performed on the hypothesis meaning: (that there is a correlating relationship with a positive dimension between the globalization and the human resources manifest in one of them increase of awareness and improving performance), but the problem of the study had possessed an axis in the following questions: (What are the positive effects of globalization in the domain of human resources?), to be asserted of the hypothesis correctness and answering its axial question, so we had employed the analytical descriptive method. The study had deduced the correctness of the hypothesis, and made us reach numerous results, the most significant of them: is that globalization observed rights of the human resources and protected them from violations, shared in increasing awareness of the human resources in plenty of things which were absent from them, also pushed the governments to concern and promote with performing the human resources, and these results obliged numerous recommendations, the most significant of them: necessity of the states doing the enlargement of positivisms of globalization in the domain of human resources, and belittling their negativisms through studied programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".