MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408490908 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc124-02

An analytical study of the role of convolutional neural network-based SHRM perception on the mechanisms of employee proactive behaviour

2025· article· en· W4408490908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanyou Wu, Gao Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkPerceptionPsychologyBusinessKnowledge managementCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of globalization and intense market competition, strategic human resource management (SHRM) is critical for boosting corporate competitiveness. This study employs structural equation modeling (SEM) and multiple linear regression to uncover the complex influence of SHRM perceptions on employee proactive behaviors, and uses a convolutional neural network (CNN) to explore nonlinear relationships and validate the SEM findings. Results reveal that SHRM perception has a significant positive effect on employee proactive behavior (\(\beta = 0.254\), \(p<0.001\)). Mediators such as job self-efficacy and conceptual psychological contract play a positive role, with indirect effects of 0.1043 and 0.1726, respectively, while insider identity perception significantly moderates the relationship (\(\beta = 0.09\), \(p<0.01\)). The CNN model ranks the importance of variables in descending order as: conceptual psychological contract, job self-efficacy, SHRM perception, job category, and insider identity perception, consistent with the SEM results. These findings highlight the potential of CNNs to optimize HR strategies and enhance employee motivation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207