MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408151458 · doi:10.3991/ijac.v18i1.53121

Leveraging Analytics to Drive Human Performance

2025· article· en· W4408151458 on OpenAlex
Denis Forest, J. Bahlis

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAI and HR Technologies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsComputer scienceData scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent audit reports by the Auditor General noted the potential impact to Canadian Armed Forces readiness due to sub optimal Defence Supply Chain performance. To identify the root cause of performance deficiencies and assess the adequacy of existing training, a systematic approach was employed to identify the knowledge and skills required by each Supply Chain role to perform their share of tasks across 39 Processes. Based on the Department of National Defence Supply Administration Manual (SAM), the project team mapped Processes and Tasks to all applicable Supply Chain Phases. Processes and Tasks were also mapped to each role and the training priority was determined based on Difficulty, Importance and Frequency (DIF) analysis. We then mapped topics/teaching points from relevant course to existing processes and Tasks; and generated a list of processes and Tasks with “adequate”, “limited” or “no” curriculum to support the acquisition of requisite knowledge and skills for each role. The analysis revealed: • All roles contribute heavily to the overall success of the Supply Chain in an integrated work environment – necessitating an understanding of the impact of their work on others. • Developing curriculum incrementally over the years based on specific, sometimes narrow needs/performance and without a comprehensive map as outlined above yielded inefficient learning solutions. • Developing role-based solutions in parallel with process-based curriculum resulted in gaps and duplication of effort. This paper reaffirms the need for “getting back to basics”. A thorough analysis and mapping of actual work/role requirements based on an authoritative reference, using a systematic process enabled by a leading-edge Training Management System, will provide a robust analysis framework. Training gaps and overlaps will become evident, and a blueprint for a comprehensive re-organization of the curriculum will naturally emerge.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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