MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408346835 · doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2025.101142

Can global talent management be good for society?

2025· article· en· W4408346835 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTalent managementBusinessKnowledge managementManagementMarketingComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current approaches to global talent management (GTM) tend to prioritize high-potential and high-performing employees and performance-focused goals realized inside organizational boundaries, with relatively little attention to societal impacts. We argue for an inclusive approach to GTM and focus on the social context for GTM and outcomes for society at large. We identify four types of GTM and draw direct links between GTM and social cohesion. Finally, we identify actionable recommendations for firms to implement in order to maximize the benefits of GTM and to reach beyond work settings to have a positive impact on the communities in which they operate.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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