MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411656723 · doi:10.51847/g6ljoilrm2

10.51847/G6LjoIlRm2

2000· article· en· W4411656723 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationPsychologyBusinessPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, change is an inevitable reality and is one of the important issues that small and large organizations are facing it Also as a certain factor in human resource management is accepted Sometimes change is imposed on the organization and or that organization in order to respond to the environment or due to internal need accepts it, Currently, the areas in which create the strongest pressure for change in organization are; People, technology, information, communication, competition and social trends.On the other hand, globalization and cultural development are two paradigm which each in their turn contain mentioned factors and are considered a strong incentive to change various aspects of organization And organizations also have to deal with them regularly managers that are in top of pyramid of decision-making in organizations As the most important factor to determine the method of dealing with these phenomena are the center of attention Thus, The purpose of this study, is gathering information, assessment and recognition of the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults 1 managers of globalization and cultural development.The research method is descriptive.Management performance are recognized and on the basis of indicators of globalization and cultural development questions in the questionnaire were designed and distributed Then results were obtained using spss software.On this basis between evaluating the performance of Center for Intellectual Development managers with globalization and cultural development there is significant but weak relationship and this organization has not had much success in the face of this paradigm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9490.937

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207