Experience of canadian companies in attracting human capital to regions with severe climatic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attraction of human resources for work in the Arctic is today an urgent task of the state level. It's not just about attracting people to the move, but also about keeping people already working in the region. The task is complex and should include many parameters: state guarantees, corporate social responsibility of companies, living conditions in the region and others. Many foreign companies already have experience in attracting people to regions different from their usual living environment. At the same time, workers are often forced to work in unfavorable or severe climatic conditions (extremely low or extremely high temperatures) far from the main infrastructure facilities. It is necessary to investigate the existing methods of assessing workers' compensation for moral or physical "damage" in connection with work in difficult conditions, away from home, friends and habitat. The experience of staff motivation to work in unfavorable climatic conditions of the largest companies of Canada ImperialOil, RioTinto, Ledcor was studied in this paper. Companies in cooperation with the state widely used corporate social responsibility programs for their employees: high level of salary, non request for work experience, construction of houses and other infrastructure in the regions of presence, simplified procedure for obtaining citizenship for workers from foreign countries. The identified methods of attracting human resources have been analyzed. The recommendations for Russian companies working in the Arctic are given.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".