Prediction in HRM research–A gap between rhetoric and reality
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.
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 | 0.210 | 0.415 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".