Political Behavior and its Impact on the Level of Organizational Conflict: An Analytical Study of the Parliament of Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to diagnose the theoretical and intellectual fundamentals of the two phenomena of political behavior and organizational conflict of the members of the parliament of Jordan (of Notables and Parliament), also it aims to reveal the relation among the basic dimensions of political behavior and organizational conflict, and its organizational and psychological impacts within the causality concept as long as related to both political behavior and organizational conflict.The study sample consisted of 78 members in the parliament, who have been chosen in a random sample and it formed a rate of 30% of the study, the researcher developed a questionnaire as a tool to gather the necessary data for the study and led to a number of results:1. There is a difference in the patterns of political behavior and patterns of organizational conflict among the members of the parliament (Notables and representatives).2. There is a difference in the political behavior strategies and organizational conflict strategies among the members of the parliament.3. There is a statistically significant correlation between the political behavior dimensions and all of the variables (sex, marital status, functional expertise, and presence times to the parliament and the party to which it belongs), with a rate of 70%.4. There is a statistically significant correlation between the organizational conflict dimensions and all of the variables (marital status, and presence times to the parliament), with a rate of 29%.5. The results showed that the political behavior dimensions combined (agreement on objectives, agreement on public policies and personal agreement) and it has been shown a rate of 52.2%, 46.3%, and 48.8%, respectively of the total variation in the organizational conflict dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".