A study of in-service training as a function of management in federal government
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing importance that is being placed upon the role of personnel administration and management in the Federal Government affords many research opportunities for the student of Public Administration. Today, there is a challenging opportunity for research in the process of training and development of personnel, and particularly in the field of in-service training. During the past quarter of a century there have been many studies and literature on the subject of training, but because of the dynamic setting in which personnel administration and management function, there is a need for continuous study. Irrespective of the importance that is now being given to personnel management in the Federal Government, there appears to be a lack of emphasis placed upon in-service training and development of personnel as a responsibility of management. It is because of this increasing importance of personnel management, the apparent need for greater emphasis on in-service training as a function of management, and the personal interest of the author in the subject, that this study has been undertaken. The study has involved a survey of outstanding literature in the field of training, governmental and industrial; personal observations of training concepts and practices, governmental and industrial; and personal experience as an in-service training staff member in departments of the Federal Government.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it