MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994299036 · doi:10.1108/eb047435

THE FOUR FACES OF PAY: AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW CANADIAN MANAGERS VIEW PAY

2002· article· en· W1994299036 on OpenAlex
Hari Das

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Commerce and Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPay for performanceSymbol (formal)Core (optical fiber)MarketingPsychologySocial psychologyBusinessEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While over 300 major studies have looked at pay, an empirically derived model of managerial perceptions of pay is yet to emerge. This study attempts to answer the question: “what does pay mean to managers?” Based on three different samples of Canadian managers, the present paper outlines a four factor model of managerial perceptions of pay. It is suggested here that pay has multiple meanings to managers: pay is a symbol of success, it acts as a reinforcer and motivator, it reflects performance and, finally, it reduces anxiety. The paper suggests that two core dimensions may underlie managerial perceptions of pay: its capacity to produce and reduce tension and its focus on self and others. The implications of the present findings for theory and practice and how the present findings relate to past writings in the field are outlined.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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