Prediction in HRM research–A gap between rhetoric and reality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are broadly two dimensions on which researchers can evaluate their statistical models: explanatory power and predictive power. Using data on job satisfaction in ageing workforces, we empirically highlight the importance of distinguishing between these two dimensions clearly by showing that a model with a certain degree of explanatory power can produce vastly different levels of predictive power and vice versa—in the same and different contexts. In a further step, we review all the papers published in three top‐tier human resource management journals between 2014 and 2018 to show that researchers generally confuse explanation and prediction. Specifically, while almost all authors rely solely on explanatory power assessments (i.e., assessing whether the coefficients are significant and in the hypothesised direction), they also derive practical recommendations, which inherently result from a predictive scenario. Based on our results, we provide HRM researchers recommendations on how to improve the rigour of their explanatory studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it