MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004430762 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n4p231

Psychological Contract and Knowledge Sharing among Academicians: Mediating Role of Relational Social Capital

2011· article· en· W2004430762 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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 Business Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological contractSocial capitalKnowledge sharingRelational capitalStructural equation modelingPsychologySocial contractKnowledge managementEmpirical researchCapital (architecture)BusinessSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceIntellectual capitalComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the mediating role of relational social capital in the relationship between psychological contract and knowledge sharing. This study collected data from 145 academicians in Malaysian public universities using questionnaires. Data was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling. The findings suggest that trust and collaboration fully mediate the relationship between relational psychological contract and knowledge sharing. The study supports the call for more empirical evidence concerning the role of social capital in understanding the relationship between psychological contract and knowledge sharing. This study contributes to the literature by linking psychological contract and knowledge sharing through the lens of social capital.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.246 · 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