Senior/Junior Recipient Status and Reward Allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines senior/junior recipient status as a possible determinant of perceived fairness of given allocations and allocation preference. Considering status as a feature associated with the cultural dimension of power distance, female university students from India (a high power distance, relatively collectivistic culture) and Canada (a low power distance, individualistic culture) were compared with regard to perceived fairness and allocation preferences in scenarios involving an organisational or an academic setting, with varying senior/junior recipient status, allocation rule combinations, nature of allocation, and the allocator/recipient role. Overall, recipient status effects were incongruent with the expected power distance differences. Further, Canadians perceived more fairness and less unfairness than Indians. They favoured seniority to a greater extent than Indians, possibly because they treated seniority as a component of merit. Indians manifested an equality orientation, and gave variable responses to seniority depending on the nature of allocation, allocator/recipient role, rule combination and their interactive effects. Allocation preferences were affected more by rule combination than by recipient status in both cultures. The need to examine status effects with a modified research design was underlined.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".