MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099869529

Voluntary Turnover: Knowledge Management Friend or Foe

2002· article· en· W7099869529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalHuman capitalWorkforceHuman resource managementHuman resourcesPortfolioTurnoverKnowledge economyCompetitive advantage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of the knowledge era has affected all industries. Without exception, the Canadian financial services industry has transformed itself due to the knowledge-intensive structure it possesses. However, high competition and career-minded professionals have created a situation in which leading financial services firms are losing key human capital each day -- capital that can and will be used against them in the modern fast-paced labour market. In the fight for the brightest senior executives, portfolio managers and fund administrators, human resource professionals must pay attention to the investments they are making in their employees through training and development, while monitoring reward and recognition programs so that loss of intellectual capital is kept to a minimum. This study examines 19 Canadian financial service firms and their current human capital practices. Results show that while human resource managers are effectively managing the people in their organizations through: 1) training and development, 2) performance reviews and 3) the effective management of fluctuating workforce demands, this study highlights the need for greater attention to be paid to the leveraging of human capital that exists within their knowledge-intensive workforce. Furthermore, research findings strongly suggest the need to increase knowledge management behaviours such as the valuation and codification of organizational knowledge assets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.024

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; both teacher heads 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207