MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403340657 · doi:10.1002/hrm.22255

Revitalizing Colleague‐Specific Human Capital: Boomerang and Pipeline‐Based Hiring in a 41‐Year Multilevel Study of Employee Mobility

2024· article· en· W4403340657 on OpenAlexaff
Lan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersPeking University
KeywordsPipeline (software)Human capitalMultilevel modelBusinessCapital (architecture)Operations managementManagementComputer scienceEconomicsGeographyEconomic growthMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Amidst the decline of permanent employment contracts and the rapid shortening of career cycles, organizations often face challenges in fully capitalizing on employee mobility. This study adopts a multilevel perspective to explore how mobility impacts both individual and team performance, focusing on acquiring colleague‐specific human capital through two talent acquisition strategies: boomerang hiring and pipeline‐based hiring. Using a unique Major League Baseball database spanning 41 years, including 19,927 player‐year records and 1156 team‐year records, our analysis reveals that individuals engaged in boomerang and pipeline‐based hiring and possessing higher levels of individual colleague‐specific human capital, experience greater benefits from mobility in terms of individual performance. Moreover, these hiring strategies allow organizations to effectively harness colleague‐specific human capital. Specifically, team performance is positively influenced by a greater proportion of boomerang hiring through team colleague‐specific human capital resources. Similarly, a higher ratio of pipeline‐based hiring, alongside other recurrent hiring practices, positively impacts team performance through team colleague‐specific human capital resources. Our findings provide valuable insights for organizations aiming to rejuvenate their colleague‐specific human capital resources through strategic hiring practices to achieve sustained success.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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 venueHuman Resource ManagementSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207