MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220825568 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v24i1.5066

The Executive MBA Tuition Sponsorship Dilemma: A Case Study Analysis

2022· article· en· W4220825568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Françis Petit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFordham University
KeywordsExecutive summaryDilemmaReimbursementBusinessExecutive directorPublic relationsAccountingMarketingManagementPolitical scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to provide guidance to organizations in developing a tuition reimbursement policy for Executive MBA Programs. To determine this information, a LinkedIn Study was conducted for the graduates of Fordham University’s Executive MBA Program (2011 – 2021) to determine career decisions and organizational movement. In addition, one-on-one interviews were conducted to a subset of graduates who have remained at their organizations. The main findings of this study indicate that organizations do not have to feel compelled to fully financially sponsor Executive MBA Programs for retention purposes as there exists other attributes of key importance to employees.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207