MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388768229 · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12538

The elusiveness of strategic HR partnering: Using paradox theory to understand tensions surrounding the HR business partnering role

2023· article· en· W4388768229 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessFunction (biology)Mechanism (biology)Resource (disambiguation)Human resource managementStrategic planningMarketingResource dependence theoryFrame (networking)Industrial organizationManagementEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Human resource business partnering is an established mechanism for the advancement of strategic HR. While much research has reported on relationships between partners (HRBPs) and line managers, relationships between partners and other aspects of the HR function are less well understood, as is the interplay between HRBP‐LMP and HRBP‐HR relationships. Through the use of paradox theory and case study methodology centred on a large public sector health care authority, we found these two sets of relationships to be operating paradoxically within an operational frame of reference, thereby constraining the establishment of strategic partnering.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.189 · 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