MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064116724 · doi:10.1080/00223980309600637

Individual- and Perceived Contextual-Level Antecedents of Individual Technical Information Inquiry in Organizations

2003· article· en· W2064116724 on OpenAlexaff
Hwee Hoon Tan, Bin Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExpectancy theoryAffect (linguistics)Variance (accounting)Social psychologyEmpirical researchQuality (philosophy)Applied psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors conducted an empirical study in research and development centers and research-oriented commercial companies in Singapore to test a model for understanding individuals' technical information inquiry behavior in organization settings. Individual-level antecedents (learning orientation, risk-taking propensity, and self-efficacy) and perceived contextual-level antecedents (management support, relationship quality, organizational norms favoring technical information inquiry, and accessibility of the information source) were theorized to affect one's evaluation of the potential benefits and costs in making technical information inquiries. The results showed that the perceived norms favoring technical information inquiry affected the willingness of individuals to make technical information inquiries through the mediating variable, expectancy value. In addition, compared with individual-level variables, perceived contextual-level variables explained slightly more variance in the willingness to make technical information inquiries. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PsychologySame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207