MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387004488 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180934

A Planning Model for Improving Personnel Competence in Pursuit of Sustainable Development

2023· article· en· W4387004488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaroslav Zhovnirchyk, Valeriy Cherkaska, Oksana Inozemtseva, Serhii Zhuravel, Dmytro Pyzyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCompetency Development and Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentCompetence (human resources)Process managementBusinessEnvironmental planningRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering managementEngineeringEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this article is to explore ways to improve personnel competence in the context of sustainable development. To achieve this, our key scientific task is to develop a planning model for enhancing personnel competence within the context of sustainable development for a selected organization. The organization's personnel is the subject of this study. Our research was motivated by the objective of discovering ways to enhance personnel competence for socio-economic systems like an organization, all within the context of sustainable development. As a result, we have developed a contemporary three-level planning model for improving personnel competence in the context of sustainable development. Each level of the model is presented in detail and characterized accordingly. We used the IDEF technique as our primary modeling method, and the planning model was developed using vector programs. The key elements of the planning model include graphic visualization, context characterization, and information accessibility. The novelty of our research results lies in the formation of a modern methodological perspective on increasing personnel competence in the context of sustainable development. However, this article has a limitation: the study was conducted solely in the context of improving the planning process. Consequently, we only characterized one stage-planning. Our future research will be directed toward studying all stages of improving personnel competence in the context of sustainable development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicCompetency Development and EvaluationFrench-language works237,207