MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086236777 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v7n7p175

Research of Employees Psychological Capital Structure under the Background of Chinese Culture

2014· article· en· W2086236777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui Qingshan, Le Lou, Xuansheng Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisCapital (architecture)Context (archaeology)Exploratory factor analysisSocial psychologyPsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)Psychological researchApplied psychologyStructural equation modelingClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychological capital is an individual's positive psychological state of development, which has four features and five criteria. Psychological capital structure in Chinese cultural context contains: calm, hope, optimism and confidence. Through the methods of literature research, discussion, open questionnaire, and the formal research, this paper got employees' psychological capital content structure questionnaire items under the background of Chinese culture. We collected the relevant data, used exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to analyze data statistically. It explored employees' psychological capital structure dimensions under the background of the Chinese culture and concluded to the psychological capital content structure questionnaire, and tested the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Then we developed psychological capital scale that met the requirements of psychometrics, which lay the foundation for follow-up study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207