Collective Autonomy and Absenteeism Within Work Teams: A Team Motivation Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the role of collective autonomy in regard to team absenteeism by considering team potency as a motivational mediator and task routineness as a moderator. The sample consists of 90 work teams (327 members and 90 immediate superiors) drawn from a public safety organization. Results of structural equation modeling indicate that the relationships between collective autonomy and two indicators of team absenteeism (i.e., absence frequency and time lost) are mediated by team potency. Specifically, collective autonomy is positively related to team potency which in turn is negatively related to team absenteeism. Furthermore, results of hierarchical regression analyses show that task routineness moderates the relationships between collective autonomy and the two indicators of team absenteeism such that these relationships are stronger when the level of task routineness is low. On the whole, this study points out that collective autonomy may exercise a motivational effect on attendance at work within teams, but this effect is contingent on task routineness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it