Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, the theory of psychological contract is the focus of human resources research at home and abroad. With the transformation of economic pattern and globalization of world economy, the psychological contract in employment relationship has changed extremely, even has been broken and to be perceived as psychological contract violations. The present article first analyzed when unfulfilled commitments will be perceived as psychological contract violations, then when employees will respond negatively to those psychological contract violations they do experience. At last, the article putted forward some evasion games. Key words: psychological contract, Psychological contract violations, discrepancy Resume: La theorie du contrat psychologique est un point chaud dans le domaine de ressources huamaines en Chine et a l’etranger. Au fur et a mesure de la transformation du modele economique de l’entreprise et du developpement de la globalisation economique, il y a des changements psychologiques dans la relation entre employes et organisations, voire une rupture ou un non-respect du contrat psychologique. Cet article tente de nous montrer dans quelle condition les employes vont considerer les promesses non remplies comme le non-respect du contrat psychologique et quand ils repondront d’une facon negative a ce non-respect du contrat. A la fin, il nous donne des strategies de faux-fuyant Face au non-respect du contrat psychologique. Mots-cles: contrat psychologique, non-respect du contrat psychologique, difference 摘要：心理契約理論是當前國內外人力資源領域研究的熱點。隨著企業經濟模式的轉變和經濟全球化的發展使員工和組織之間的心理契約關係發生變數，甚至被打破形成心理契約違背。本文分析了員工何時將會把感知未被履行的承諾當作心理契約違背，同時員工何時會對這些違背做出負面的回應，昀後提出了心理契約違背的規避策略。 關鍵詞：心理契約；心理契約違背；差異
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".