Combining dispositions and evaluations of vocation and job to account for counterproductive work behavior in adolescent job apprentices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present research, we investigated the joint impact of selected antecedents of counterproductive work behavior (CWB). A sample of German apprentices reported on their CWB and completed measures of situational evaluations (vocational preference, level and constructiveness of job satisfaction) believed to trigger CWB and of dispositional motivators (measured by integrity test subscales) and controls (self-control and another subset of integrity scales) of CWB. All predictors investigated showed the expected bivariate relationships with CWB. Multivariate analyses revealed that the triggering effect of an unfavorable vocational choice on CWB was fully mediated by job satisfaction. When predictors were aggregated, a composite of dispositional control variables had the largest effect on CWB and moderated the effects of motivational dispositions and situational evaluations. These results extend the knowledge on antecedents of CWB by investigating previously overlooked variables and samples and partially replicate recent findings on the joint impact of dispositions and work-related evaluations on CWB.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".