MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964929328 · doi:10.1002/hrm.10071

Downsizing outcomes: Better a victim than a survivor?

2003· article· en· W1964929328 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

VenueHuman Resource Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredenceControl (management)PsychologyJob stressPublic relationsBusinessSocial psychologyManagementPolitical scienceJob satisfactionEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Is it better to be laid off when a downsizing initiative is announced? We analyze the outcomes experienced by both victims and survivors involved in a major downsizing program, and present a model of downsizing stress. Results indicate that displaced employees, or “victims,” who secure new employment fare better than survivors. The victims in our study perceive higher levels of control, less stress, and fewer negative job strains than continuing workers, or “survivors.” These results lend credence to suggestions that stress and control are critical factors in understanding employee reactions to downsizing. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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