Taking advantage of social comparisons in performance appraisal: The relative percentile method
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
Abstract Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) implies that it may be more efficacious for job performance raters to compare an employee to other employees rather than to use typical “absolute” rating standards. We assessed whether the incorporation of social comparisons into performance appraisals, using the relative percentile method (RPM), would predict criterion variance beyond that predicted by more traditional absolute ratings of performance. A sample (N=170) of managers involved in an assessment center was used, and the center provided criteria by which the relative criterion‐related validity of social‐comparative versus noncomparative (absolute) appraisals could be assessed. Overall, in consonance with a preponderance of earlier research, social‐comparative (RPM) performance appraisals showed incremental criterion‐related validity over traditional absolute performance appraisal methods. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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