MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012150941 · doi:10.1108/02683940410520646

Perceptions of distributive and procedural justice in employee benefits: flexible versus traditional benefit plans

2004· article· en· W2012150941 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

VenueJournal of Managerial Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributive justiceProcedural justiceOrganizational justicePerceptionPlan (archaeology)Economic JusticePsychologyBusinessInteractional justiceSocial psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The self‐interest and relational models of organizational justice were tested to explain the relationship between benefit plan type and organizational justice. Benefit plan types considered were flexible and traditional plans. In support of the self‐interest model employees in flexible benefit plans had significantly higher perceptions of procedural justice than employees in traditional benefit plans. There were no significant differences in perceptions of distributive justice between the plan types.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.257 · 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