MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981697902

Exploring the Involvement of All Managers and Employees in Developing and Implementing Performance Management Systems in Canadian Public Sector Organizations

2015· other· en· W6981697902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sectorBalanced scorecardAccountabilityPrivate sectorTransparency (behavior)Performance managementPerformance measurementOrganizational performance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigated the extent of involvement of Front-line Employees and Senior- Mid- and Operational-level Managers in the conception, design, development and implementation of their Performance Management System (PMS) and outcomes from their involvement in four public sector organizations. Performance Measurement (PMe) and Performance Management (PM) have a lengthy history in the measurement and management of organizational and employee performance. Measuring performance in organizations began in the early 1800s when municipal performance data were collected and analyzed with the goal of increasing employee and organizational performance. PMe and Performance Management Systems (PMSs) originated following a general dissatisfaction with the traditional financial performance measures. A review of the literature revealed that even though many PMe systems and PMSs such as the BSC were originally developed for use in private sector organizations, recent pressures have resulted in the adoption of similar systems in public sector organizations. New and growing challenges, driven by changing demographics, deregulation, technological advances, free-trade, global economic change, changing public attitudes, emphasis on customer satisfaction and competition for qualified employees have led to greater demand for accountability and transparency in public sector organizations. These changes require public sector organizations to adopt private sector PMS initiatives such as Kaplan and Norton's (1992) Balanced Scorecard (BSC).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207