MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252854361 · doi:10.1017/s0021900200007452

Probabilistic Analysis of the Efficacy of Periodic Testing of Employees

2010· article· en· W4252854361 on OpenAlexaff
Simeon M. Berman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsQuantilePercentileProbabilistic logicSequence (biology)Independent and identically distributed random variablesRandom variableExtreme value theoryFunction (biology)StatisticsNonlinear systemProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some major companies have the policy of annually giving numerical scores to their employees according to their performance, firing those whose performance scores are below a given percentile of the scores of all employees, and then recruiting new employees to replace those who were fired. We introduce a probabilistic model to describe how this practice affects the quality of employee performance as measured over time by the annual scores. Let n be the number of years that the policy has been in effect, and let F n (x) be the distribution function of the evaluation scores in year n. We show, under certain technical assumptions, that the sequence (F n (x)) satisfies a particular nonlinear difference equation, and furnish estimates of the solution of the equation and expressions for the quantiles of F n . The mathematical tools that are used include convex functions, difference equations, and extreme value theory for independent and identically distributed random variables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.170
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.170
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207