Agendas for future Training Transfer Research: Pakistan’s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work was financed by Regina Public Interest Research Group and the Faculty of Graduate Study and Research of the University of Regina, Canada. Abstract Research on training transfer has been mostly conducted in developed countries. This paper is unique because it attempts to research training transfer from a developing country’s perspective. This paper is about the origins, evolution, current state and trends in training transfer research and practice in Pakistani organizations. The paper begins with a discussion on education and training. It discusses the evolution of education and training in Pakistan and explains the four systems of education in Pakistan at the primary, high school, and college levels. Then, this paper explores the origins of training in Pakistan. While exploring the origins of training in Pakistan, this section gives a detailed account on the training and consulting industry of Pakistan. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research that would contribute in the fields of training transfer and human resource development. Keywords: Training transfer, human resource development, education, Pakistan, management. DOI : 10.7176/DCS/9-4-06 Publication date: April 30th 2019
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".