MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning and Human Resource Management: A Path to Efficient Workforce Management

2023· article· en· W4392175700 on OpenAlexaff
Ankita Saxena, Sammaiah Buhukya, Ippa Sumalatha, Amit Dutt, Abothar Mahmod Shaaker, V Asha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAI and HR Technologies
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman resource managementResource management (computing)WorkforceComputer sciencePath (computing)Knowledge managementArtificial intelligenceDistributed computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to achieve effective workforce management, this empirical study investigates the incorporation of machine learning into human resource management (HRM). HRM is a fundamental function that oversees talent acquisition, employee welfare, and performance optimization in organizations. The dynamic nature of today's workplace presents special opportunities as well as challenges for HRM. Machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence, has the potential to completely transform human resource management (HRM) by means of the use of data-driven decision-making, bias mitigation, employee experience personalization, as well as procedure optimization. The first section of the paper provides an overview of machine learning's application to HRM, with a particular focus on forward-thinking employee turnover prediction, personalized onboarding and training, recruitment automation, in addition to predictive analytics for employee success. Machine learning promotes fairness and equal opportunities by utilizing objective data to address bias in HR procedures. There are numerous advantages to incorporating machine learning into HRM, such as objectivity, personalization, automation that reduces costs, and decision-making based on information. The practical advantages of integrating machine learning in HRM are demonstrated by real-world case studies from businesses like Hilton, Xerox, and IBM. The resulting advantages include improved productivity, lower attrition, and higher employee engagement.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicAI and HR TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207