MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115427973 · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0507

Reactions to Territorial Infringement

2010· article· en· W2115427973 on OpenAlexafffund
Graham Brown, Sandra L. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReactionaryAngerTerritorialityVariety (cybernetics)Work (physics)Social psychologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyLawEngineeringCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Territoriality represents a new area of research in organizations. In this study, we empirically examined how territorial infringement leads to anger and reactionary defenses. Using a cognitive appraisal theory of anger, we posited that a perceived infringement evokes anger that, in turn, fuels reactionary defenses. We tested our hypotheses by using data collected in an open-ended survey of 125 employees. They provided us with critical incidents of perceived infringement at work, which we then coded into quantitative measures. We found that employees are territorial over a wide variety of things at work, and they react in many ways when they perceive infringement of these territories. We discuss these findings and suggest several directions for future research in this emerging area.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations111
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization ScienceSame topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207