MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158511523 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9318

Developing the Upcoming Generation of Leaders in the Workplace

2018· article· en· W3158511523 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ruhee Ismail-Teja

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipWorkforcePublic relationsTransparency (behavior)Leadership developmentOrder (exchange)Work (physics)BusinessPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project is designed to understand the different generations coexisting in the workplace and create recommendations for corporate leadership on most effectively managing and developing leadership competencies in the younger generation. This investigation, examined through secondary sources and interviews with 20-35 year-olds, provides insight on the tools upcoming leaders need in order to build on current corporate success. Current research from psychology and business journals, and publications released by consulting companies and other sources was consolidated to evaluate the status of the workforce given the recent generational spread. Interviews were conducted with twelve employees and consultants from various industries in Calgary to understand their workplace values, definition of effective leadership, career aspirations, and views on their needs from current employers. Gen Yer’s and Traditionalists want to learn from one another in order to combine skills and strengths. This learning should take the form of both structured and informal mentorship as well as 360-degree feedback. The incoming generation wants a company to invest in them, which many companies are reluctant towards because they accurately believe Gen Xer’s and Yer’s have less longevity. The paradox lies in the reality that this generation is drawn to an environment in which their capacity for learning and opportunities are extensive. They are eager to build their careers with a company that helps them access a range of experiences, understand the ‘big picture’, and fosters challenging and meaningful work. Younger workers expect a culture of transparency, teams over hierarchies, respect for personal life, and trust.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.639
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesFrench-language works237,207