MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1904671543 · doi:10.1002/jocb.89

Proactive Goal Generation and Innovative Work Behavior: The Moderating Role of Affective Commitment, Production Ownership and Leader Support for Innovation

2015· article· en· W1904671543 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Creative Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Perspective (graphical)Work (physics)Organizational commitmentBusinessProactivitySample (material)Test (biology)Work behaviorPsychologyKnowledge managementMarketingSocial psychologyMicroeconomicsEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Building on goal‐regulation theory, we develop and test the hypothesis that proactive goal generation fosters individual innovative work behavior. Consistent with a resource‐based perspective, we further examine two‐three‐way interactions to assess whether the link between proactive goal generation and innovative behavior is jointly moderated by organizational affective commitment and production ownership, or, alternatively, leader support for innovation. In a sample of 442 municipal employees from the administrative division of an Italian city hall, proactive goal generation was positively associated with innovative work behavior. Additionally, as expected, this relationship was stronger when employees were highly affectively committed to their organization and when they exhibited a high level of production ownership or received extensive support for innovation from their supervisors. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.226 · 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