Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Anglo-Saxon countries or the liberal market economies are just about the only example of a country grouping that both the cultural theories and the comparative institutional theories agree on. Culturally, these countries are characterized by low power distance, high individualism, and low uncertainty avoidance. Institutionally, these countries have shared legal origins (common law) and specific political systems (first-past-the-post in most instances). They are the stock market capitalist, liberal market, or compartmentalized capitalist countries. They are characterized by powerful private property rights, lesser rights for other stakeholders, and government being less interested in supporting stakeholder rights, with commensurate suspicion of government involvement (other than in respect of bailouts of politically connected insider corporations) and taxation. Competition is depicted as unalloyed good, even if in practice such markets are often characterized by powerful oligopolies. This is important because the original theories of management and of human resource management, most of the research, and much of the current thinking in these areas come from the United States of America; most of the largest management consultancies have their headquarters or draw their inspiration from the United States; and academic teaching and publication follow the United States. There have, however, been debates about how cohesive and consistent the Anglo-Saxon category is and precisely how the implications for human resource management are manifested in each country.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".