MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108633966 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.10.020

Human resources development assessment planning program and bureaucratic reform management on the performance of government organization

2020· article· en· W3108633966 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sukmo Hadi Nugroho, Adi Bandono, Okol Sri Suharyo

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracyStructural equation modelingGovernment (linguistics)BusinessStrategic planningHuman resourcesProcess managementKnowledge managementManagementMarketingPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to analyze the assessment of Human Resources Development (HRD) Planning on the Government Organization Performance through Bureaucratic Reform Management. The Government Organization tasked with preparing public goods/services must be able to provide certainty of their performance capacity as an organization that is professionally organized and is non-excludability in providing an adequate level of service. This research is based on the performance of Government Organization that have not been maximized. The method used is the Second Order Structural Equation Modeling analysis method. The research results showed that HRD Planning had a significant influence on Organization performance through Bureaucratic Reform Management. Tests on the research model simultaneously proved that the model was fit with the fulfillment of all model fitting sizes indicated by the value of GFI = 0.925, CFI = 0.927, RMSEA = 0.075, and CMIN / DF = 1.995. The findings of this study prove that HRD Planning has a significant effect on Organization performance through Bureaucratic Reform Management. Based on these findings, the right strategy to strengthen Organization performance can be done by improving aspects of HRD Planning. Also, there is a need to pay attention to the management of strategic change by being more responsive and adaptive to environmental changes and HRD Planning.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207