MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132987715

Resources over Constraints? Exploring Employer Branding in the Canadian Public Service from 1992 to 2024 Through BERT-Based Detection of Job Resources-Demands Dimensions

2025· article· en· W7132987715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guillaume Revillod, Isabelle Caron, Jean-François Savard, David Giauque

Bibliographic record

VenueIRIS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic servicePublic sectorCompetition (biology)Public policyHuman resource managementContent analysisService (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era of intensified competition to attract and retain workers, employer branding has emerged as a strategic priority for public sector organizations. This article explores how the Canadian federal public service has shaped its employer image over time through official discourse. Drawing on 33 years of annual reports from the Clerk of the Privy Council (1992-2024), we examine how job demands and job resources are represented in institutional narratives. To do so, we develop and fine-tune a multi-label BERT-based classifier capable of detecting twelve psychosocial dimensions derived from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. Trained on over 30,000 annotated sentences from peer-reviewed academic literature, our classifier is applied at the sentence level to the whole corpus of Clerk’s reports, enabling a granular, diachronic mapping of the discourse on working conditions in Canada's federal public administration. The results reveal both a predominance of job resources over demands and temporal variations linked to major reforms and crises. Beyond contributing to the literature on public employer branding, our study demonstrates the potential of deep learning models for theory-driven content analysis in public management research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRISSame topicEmployer Branding and e-HRMFrench-language works237,207