MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223594566 · doi:10.1177/26314541221078909

Research Landscape of Multigenerational Workforce Literature: A Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation Analysis

2022· article· en· W4223594566 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNHRD Network Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliographic couplingWorkforceScopusExtant taxonCitationRelevance (law)Diversity (politics)Citation analysisSample (material)SociologyFacet (psychology)PsychologyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceComputer scienceSocial psychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multigenerational workforce is not a transient but a permanent phenomenon impacting organisation-level outcomes. People are the differentiators for a company’s performance, and it is pertinent to understand the facets that influence employee behaviour at the workplace. One such facet is generational diversity. This study attempts to understand the intellectual structure of multigenerational workforce literature and its relevance in HRD. Bibliometric analysis comprising bibliographic coupling and co-citation methods has been applied to analyse the selected sample of 109 journal articles from reputed journals obtained from the SCOPUS database. Results of this study indicate the most cited articles, the most influential authors, countries and educational institutions with leading publications and the most active journals. Lastly, the study delineates the major themes that emerge from the extant works in the area.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.256 · 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