Employee Responses To Psychological Contract Breach And Violation: Intentions To Leave The Job, Employer Or Profession
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-pagination: none;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Empirical research supports the idea that the perception of under-fulfillment of psychological contract (i.e., breach and violation) increases the willingness to leave the employer via turnover cognitions (i.e., available alternatives and search a job). Further research indicates that employee turnover is not only restricted to the notion of an employee leaving an employer to join another employer. To go beyond this restriction, data were collected among a sample of professional employees. The results suggest that when employees feel that under-fulfillment of psychological contract occur, they may leave the organization or the current job for one another by in the same organization, but did not consider leaving the profession. Findings are discussed in light of relevant literature.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it