MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399486162 · doi:10.2478/mcj-2024-0011

Are you Hiring and Managing the Right Pi-Shaped People?

2024· article· en· W4399486162 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Murray Kronick

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Consulting Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic, financial, and policy analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAsset (computer security)BusinessAsset managementAdaptation (eye)Resource (disambiguation)FinanceComputer scienceComputer securityPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract If we truly believe that “people are our greatest asset” as the old saying goes, we generally don’t treat them as assets. Traditional assets such as furniture, buildings and intellectual property are treated in a prescribed manner on financial statements as well as the ongoing care and maintenance of that asset. The author challenges the notion of considering people as expenses only and introduces five different models (or asset classes) of a management consulting firm’s greatest resource - its people. Some of these models have been around for decades, some are emerging, and all are changing with the incessant demand for adaptation of our management consulting industry worldwide.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Consulting JournalSame topicEconomic, financial, and policy analysisFrench-language works237,207