MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388903576 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.1652

Aging Workforce and Learning: State-of-the-art

2023· article· en· W4388903576 on OpenAlexaff
Thilini Ranasinghe, Eric H. Grosse, C. H. Glock, Mohamad Y. Jaber

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceAging in the American workforceExperiential learningPopulation ageingAffect (linguistics)Knowledge managementBusinessPopulationExperiential knowledgePsychologyComputer scienceMedicineEconomicsEconomic growthPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The population of most developed countries is aging; thus, the median age of the global workforce continues to rise. Human aging often results in a decline in physical and cognitive abilities, which may adversely affect the performance of labor-intensive manufacturing systems. Older workers embody profound experience and refined skills, which are success factors for manufacturing companies. Therefore, it is important for manufacturing companies to ensure that older workers remain active and productive. Identifying the potential of an aging workforce, employing technical assistance systems to meet their needs, customizing work flow processes, imparting proper training, and utilizing their experience and skills may provide a competitive advantage for the company. This paper reviews the relevant literature to understand how aging influences workers’ learning in the manufacturing and service industries and identifies management concepts and technologies suitable to support an active aging workforce. We report preliminary insights and discuss selected papers on how aging influences learning-by-doing, life-long learning, training, and experiential knowledge retention. Finally, we propose some future research directions.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207