Artificial Intelligence-Driven Talent Management System: Exploring the Risks and Options for Constructing a Theoretical Foundation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AI (Artificial intelligence) has the potential to improve strategies to talent management by implementing advanced automated systems for workforce management. AI can make this improvement a reality. The objective of this study is to discover the new requirements for generating a new AI-oriented artefact so that the issues pertaining to talent management are effectively addressed. The design artefact is an intelligent Human Resource Management (HRM) automation solution for talent career management primarily based on a talent intelligent module. Improving connections between professional assessment and planning features is the key goal of this initiative. Utilising a design science methodology we investigate the use of organised machine learning approaches. This technique is the key component of a complete AI solution framework that would be further informed through a suggested moderation of technology-organisation-environment (TOE) theory with the theory of diffusion of innovation (DOI). This framework was devised in order solve AI-related problems. Aside from the automated components available in talent management solutions, this study will make recommendations for practical approaches researchers may follow to fulfil a company’s specific requirements for talent growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it