Articulating scholarship in human resource management: Guidance for researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract HRMJ is a business and management journal: we seek to publish excellent work that deals not simply with people and organisations, but with the management of people and the issues and tensions around the latter. As such, the journal is broadly multidisciplinary, the key focus being on advancing theory through empirical evidence, through consolidations and extensions of conceptual knowledge, through revisiting and extending existing theory, literature reviews, as well as the development of salient research methods. This extended editorial brings together a range of perspectives from and beyond the editorial team to advance understanding around developing work for publication. As such, it is intended not only to guide authors interested in publishing in HRMJ, but all with an interest in advancing their scholarly work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.244 | 0.429 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.056 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".