MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122673223 · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000116

Submitting to the Follower Label

2012· article· en· W2122673223 on OpenAlexaff
Colette Hoption, Amy M. Christie, Julian Barling

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Psychologie · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollowershipAffect (linguistics)PsychologySocial psychologyIndependence (probability theory)Power (physics)Communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the importance of followership has been discussed in organizational literature, negative connotations attached to the follower label persist, including followers’ lack of ability and power. In two studies, we found evidence for negative effects of the follower label. Participants who were labeled a follower (Study 1), or self-labeled as followers in their jobs (Study 2), reported lower positive affect, and in turn, fewer extra-role behaviors. These findings suggest that followers might be at risk for reinforcing their negative stereotypes by avoiding opportunities to show their abilities and demonstrate their independence. Recommendations for leaders and opportunities for future research 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.012

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.279 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für PsychologieSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207