MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396595929 · doi:10.47189/rcct.v2i10.70

PERSPECTIVA TRANSFUNCIONAL DEL FUNCIONAMIENTO DE LOS EQUIPOS DIRECTIVOS.

2016· article· es· W4396595929 on OpenAlexaff
Mercedes Zenea Montejo, Teresa Cruz Cordero

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Científica Ciencia y Tecnología · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal processes and jurisprudence
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El presente trabajo relacionan los referentes teóricos que permiten conceptuar los aspectos relacionados con el funcionamiento de los equipos de dirección, órgano directivo principal, encargado de conducir a la organización hacia el logro de las metas y objetivos propuestos y de crear los mecanismos para garantizar la participación y el compromiso con dichas metas y objetivos. La perspectiva general que se sigue en el artículo, está orientada a identificar los elementos básicos y significativos que pueden conformar la base conceptual para el estudio del funcionamiento de los equipos directivos. Para ello se consideran criterios de diferentes autores sobre grupo, equipo, colectivo de trabajo y enfoque de proceso que, combinado con la experiencia de lasautoras en investigaciones precedentes, se determinan aquellos que constituyen la plataforma para un análisis, coherente y sistémico, en investigaciones sobre esta temática. En su contenido se presentan gráficos que facilitan la comprensión de los principales análisis realizados. Tiene como objetivo identificar los referentes teóricos para el análisis coherente y sistémico del funcionamiento de los equipos directivos.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.307
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Científica Ciencia y TecnologíaSame topicLegal processes and jurisprudenceFrench-language works237,207