The Instrumental‐Symbolic Framework: Organisational Image and Attractiveness of Potential Applicants and their Companions at a Job Fair
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates perceptions of organisational image and attractiveness among 200 potential applicants for the Belgian Defense and the person (e.g. friend, parent) accompanying them to a job fair. The instrumental‐symbolic framework is applied to conceptualise the key dimensions of an organisation's image as an employer. The results indicate that instrumental image attributes predict perceived organisational attractiveness for both potential applicants (social activities, structure, and advancement opportunities) and their companions (educational opportunities). Moreover, consistent with the instrumental‐symbolic framework, symbolic image traits explain incremental variance in the attractiveness perceptions of potential applicants (sincerity, excitement, prestige, and ruggedness) as well as of companions (sincerity and ruggedness). Overall, instrumental and symbolic image predict attractiveness more strongly for potential applicants than for their companions, and potential applicants have a somewhat more positive view of the organisation. In addition, companions' perceived attractiveness positively predicts potential applicants' attractiveness beyond potential applicants' instrumental and symbolic image perceptions.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it