Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation.
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
This field study examined applicant reactions (N = 802) toward face-to-face as compared with technology-mediated interviews (through videoconferencing or by telephone) for 346 organizations. Face-to-face interviews were perceived as more fair and led to higher job acceptance intentions than were videoconferencing and telephone interviews. Perceived interview outcomes were higher with face-to-face and telephone interviews over videoconferencing. Self-monitoring moderated the relationship between interview medium and perceptions of fairness. Specifically, this relationship was (a). positive for face-to-face, (b). negative for telephone, and (c). nonsignificant for videoconferencing interviews. Moreover, the number of offers an applicant received moderated the relationship between interview medium over, and perceived fairness. The relationship between number of offers and perceived fairness was positive for face-to-face and negative for technology-mediated interviews.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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