TIMSKI RAD U FUNKCIJI RAZVOJA ZAPOSLENIH NA PRIMERU IT KOMPANIJE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apstrakt: Rad se bavi proučavanjem značaja timskog rada na profesionalni razvoj zaposlenih u okviru IT kompanije. Polazna pretpostavka je da timski rad, osim realizacije zadataka, predstavlja važan mehanizam za učenje, razmenu znanja i izgradnju poverenja među članovima tima. Istraživanje kombinuje teorijski okvir sa analizom ankete sprovedene među zaposlenima, kako bi se sagledalo na koji način kvalitet timske saradnje doprinosi jačanju kompetencija i motivaciji za napredak. Rezultati pokazuju da elementi poput jasne komunikacije, zajedničkih ciljeva, podrške i psihološke sigurnosti imaju ključnu ulogu u profesionalnom razvoju. Zaključuje se da ulaganje u timsku kulturu, mentorstvo i kontinuirano učenje doprinosi i individualnom i organizacionom rastu. Ključne reči: timski rad, profesionalni razvoj, IT kompanija, saradnja, komunikacija, poverenje, psihološka sigurnost, organizaciona kultura
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".