MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385562579 · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599200

The 4th International Workshop on Talent and Management Computing (TMC'2023)

2023· article· en· W4385562579 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, Yong Ge, Ee‐Peng Lim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStony Brook UniversityUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaCarnegie Mellon UniversityTianjin UniversityUniversity of Tennessee, KnoxvilleHarbin Institute of TechnologyDalian University of TechnologyBaiduNanjing UniversityBeihang UniversityUniversity of Notre DameNanjing University of Science and TechnologyYork University
KeywordsBig dataTalent managementBusiness intelligenceData managementKnowledge managementData scienceComputer scienceScale (ratio)Competitive intelligenceTechnology managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today's competitive and fast-evolving business environment, it is a critical time for organizations to rethink how to deal with the talent and management related tasks in a quantitative manner. Indeed, thanks to the era of big data, the availability of large-scale talent data provides unparalleled opportunities for business leaders to understand the rules of talent and management, which in turn deliver intelligence for effective decision making and management for their organizations. In the past few years, talent and management computing have increasingly attracted attentions from KDD communities, and a number of research/applied data science efforts have been devoted. To this end, the purpose of this workshop, i.e., the 4th International Workshop on Talent and Management Computing (TMC'2023), is to bring together researchers and practitioners to discuss both the critical problems faced by talent and management related domains, and potential data-driven solutions by leveraging state-of-the-art data mining technologies.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207