MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098334842 · doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.290

New Developments in and Directions for Goal-Setting Research

2007· article· en· W2098334842 on OpenAlexaff
Gary P. Latham, Edwin A. Locke

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychologist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoal settingPsychologySubconsciousGoal orientationPersonalityAffect (linguistics)Abandonment (legal)Priming (agriculture)Social psychologyGoal theoryApplied psychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Goal setting is an “open” theory built on inductive findings from empirical research. The present paper briefly summarizes this theory. Emphasis is then given to findings that have been obtained in the present millennium with regard to (1) the high performance cycle, (2) the role of goals as mediators of personality effects on performance, (3) personality variables as moderators of goal effects on performance, the effect of (4) distal, (5) proximal, and (6) learning goals on performance on tasks that are complex for people, (7) the ways in which priming affects the impact of a goal, (8) the interrelationship between goal setting and affect, and (9) the results of goal setting by teams. Potential directions for research on goal setting in the workplace are suggested with regard to goal abandonment, perfectionism, an employee's age, subconscious goals, and the relationship between goals and knowledge.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.027
Scholarly communication0.0140.030
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations577
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychologistSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207