MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Readiness for Change in the State Civil Apparatus: A Systematic Literature Review

2024· article· en· W4395685903 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

VenueSyntax Idea · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Issues in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewState (computer science)Political scienceComputer scienceMEDLINELawProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Readiness for change in the State Civil Apparatus is a necessity in the midst of a world situation full of turmoil, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. This readiness also has a central role in achieving success in implementing development and bureaucratic reform. The current reality is that readiness for change in the State Civil Apparatus is still low. The State Civil Apparatus has not been fully able to adapt and implement the expected changes and is still stuck with old work patterns. The aim of this research is to analyze and explain the factors that influence readiness for change in the State Civil Apparatus. This research is a systematic literature review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The sample from this research is secondary data obtained through searching journals in the Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar databases. The journals found were then selected using inclusion criteria and quality assessment, resulting in three research literatures. The research results show that there are three factors or components that can influence the readiness for change in the State Civil Apparatus, namely: perceived organizational support, work engagement and leader-member exchange

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)0.002
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.240 · 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