The OSQE Model: The AI Cycle Against the Shortage of Skilled professionals：A Holistic Solution Approach Based on Artificial Intelligence in Times of Demographic Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to counter the impending shortage of skilled professionals in the aging societies of our time in many western countries such as Germany, solutions for business and society are urgently needed. Here, artificial intelligence (AI) can play an important role in mitigating the problem with the help of diverse applications. At the same time, it is important to consider both the needs of the respective employee1 and the company to ensure that the use of AI has a positive impact on the organization and finds social acceptance. In this article, we describe the newly developed OSQE model (Optimize, Secure, Qualify, Expand), which for the first time outlines an AI cycle against the shortage of skilled professionals in a holistic approach that focuses equally on people and companies. This can serve organizations as a guide for strategy development, decision-making for and implementation of AI-supported measures in an entire cycle of an employee's affiliation with a company. The model takes three driving forces into account: companies, professionals, and AI applications. In the model, the measures to be implemented are prioritized with ascending numbering based on what would be most urgent for a company to implement. All measures relate to areas of action that place people at the center and can be assigned to the classic cycle of belonging of an employee in the company. In this regard, the opportunities that AI offers to professionals and companies are highlighted.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".