Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un feed‐back de gratification a été donné par des subordonnés aux managers australiens d’une firme internationale de prestation de services. Dans cette recherche quasi‐expérimentale, la perfomance au travail de ces managers, a pu être observée six mois plus tard par les subordonnés comme s’étant accrue par rapport à la performance initiale et à ceux obtenus par un groupe de comparaison. L’efficacité personnelle modère la portée de ces résultats suggérant qu’elle joue un rôle clé en déterminant des réactions comportementales au feed‐back de gratification. L’orientation vers un but d’apprentissage fut corrélée de manière significative à leur performance subséquente. Upward feedback from subordinates was provided to Australian managers in an international professional services firm. The job performance of the managers in this quasi‐experimental study was observed by subordinates to be significantly higher six months later, compared to both initial performance and subordinate ratings of a comparison group. Self‐efficacy moderated this finding, suggesting that it plays a key role in determining behavioral reactions to upward feedback. The managers’ learning goal orientation correlated significantly with their subsequent performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".