MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120304548 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v12n1p156

Employing Quantile Regression for Influences of Human Resource Management on Employee Performance

2021· article· en· W3120304548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Quang Linh Huynh, Huynh Thi Thu Suong

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman resource managementQuantile regressionBusinessQuantileEmpirical researchResource (disambiguation)Resource management (computing)Human resourcesRegression analysisKnowledge managementMarketingIndustrial organizationEconomicsComputer scienceEconometricsManagementStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study has employed the regression of quantile to explore the impacts of human resource management practices on employee performance at enterprises in business. The research data was collected in Vietnam as a developing economy. The empirical results offer a quite comprehensive picture of the causal linkages from the practices of human resource management to employee performance in emerging economies. These complex linkages have been explored at different quantiles of the conditional distribution of employee performance. The findings reveal that at different points of the conditional mean of employee performance, the effects of human resource management practices are different. The current work is helpful to researchers and business directors, especially in emerging countries like Vienam, by providing them with a more comprehensive picture of the multifaceted links from the practices of human resource management to employee performance. Accordingly, they are able to make better business decisions on the implementation of suitable human resource management. Finally, their enterprises can achieve better employee performance, which in turn leads to superior firm performance.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207