MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289532298 · doi:10.18280/rces.090202

Research on Talent Evaluation Technology Based on Systematic Co-Reaction Force Method

2022· article· en· W4289532298 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Computer Engineering Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)Cluster analysisSimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceData miningConstruct (python library)Matrix (chemical analysis)Rank (graph theory)Reliability (semiconductor)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsImage (mathematics)Materials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the multi-method and multi-model collaborative matrix model clustering calculation analysis, the talent evaluation sample data itself is used as a dictionary to re-represent each sample data, and the sample-based collaborative data reconstruction is carried out, and the talent evaluation reconstruction coefficient matrix is sparse, Low rank and smooth constraints greatly improve the reliability and validity of enterprise talent evaluation samples[1]. The main purpose of this paper is to design and construct a multi-model and multi-view collaborative similarity matrix for enterprise talent assessment, to mine the relationship between talent assessment samples, and to achieve clustering and collaboration of assessment samples.

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.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.306 · 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