MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROGRESSION THROUGH THE RANKS: ASSESSING EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO HIGH‐STAKES EMPLOYMENT TESTING

2009· article· en· W2011456759 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyCognitionPerceptionTest anxietySocial psychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceEconomic JusticeInformation processingClinical psychologyApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employee reactions to promotional examinations were investigated in 2 studies ( N = 498 & 182, respectively) of police officers. Anxiety, motivation, and justice perceptions were examined as possible predictors of promotional exam performance and intentions to recommend the exam to others. Reactions to a promotional examination were significantly and differentially related to those criteria. Motivation predicted performance whereas justice perceptions predicted recommendation intentions. In Study 2, the role of cognitive processing was also investigated. Results indicated that candidate reactions predicted exam performance through cognitive processing mechanisms. Exam motivation facilitated cognitive processing, which resulted in higher levels of exam performance. In contrast, exam anxiety exhibited both facilitative and debilitative cognitive processing effects.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.267 · 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