Modalités de travail à temps plein ou partiel et son influence sur les attitudes et comportements au travail: L'effet médiateur de la violation du contrat psychologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Pour répondre à leurs besoins de flexibilité, employeurs et employés sont plus ouverts au travail à temps partiel. Or, les études rapportent des résultats mitigés quant à son incidence sur les comportements au travail. Le concept du contrat psychologique permet d'identifier la nature de la relation d'emploi et constitue un cadre explicatif intéressant des différences de comportements entre des employés détenant divers statuts d'emploi. Notre étude, basée sur 275 employés, examine les différences d'influence du travail à temps partiel et à temps plein sur l'intention de quitter, l'engagement organisationnel, la satisfaction et la négligence au travail en notant l'effet médiateur de la perception de violation du contrat psychologique. Abstract Employers and employees are open to part-time work as a way to better respond to the need for flexibility. However, research findings comparing the work attitudes of part-time and full-time workers are inconclusive. The concept of the psychological contract makes it possible to identify the nature of the working relationship and constitutes an interesting explanatory framework for the differences in attitudes and behaviors between these two employment statuses. Our study, based on 275 employees, examines differences in influence of part-time and full-time work on the intention to leave, work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work negligence by noting the mediator effect of the perception of violation of the psychological contract.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".