MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394570277 · doi:10.3390/bs14040303

Communication as a Key Performance Indicator in Employer Branding in the Context of the Social Economy—A Quantitative Study

2024· article· en· W4394570277 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Heide, Silvana Prodan, George Lăzăroiu, Barbara Kreis-Engelhardt, Alexandru-Mihai Ghigiu

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractivenessBusinessStatus quoContext (archaeology)MarketingEmployer brandingOrder (exchange)Public relationsCompetition (biology)PerceptionEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance measurement refers to the systematic evaluation and analysis of the performance and results of business processes, initiatives, or strategies. This study discusses the crucial role of communication using signaling theory in employer branding in the context of the social economy organization (SEO). The aim is to measure employee satisfaction in concrete terms and to determine the status quo of the communication culture of the organization under investigation in order to develop an employer branding strategy based on the results. The authors use an employee survey as a quantitative research method and limit the data collection to the EU member state of Germany considering the research background. The results provide insights into the specific communication policy in relation to employer branding. The focus here is on (digital) communication. Organizations need to understand how communication strategies directly influence the perception of the employer brand in the social economy. Furthermore, practical implications are derived in order to increase employer attractiveness. Concrete recommendations of action for SEOs should help them be successful in the competition for qualified specialists and talent.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.365
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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicEmployer Branding and e-HRMFrench-language works237,207