MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139142990 · doi:10.1177/1059601108329811

Contextual Inhibitors of Employee Creativity in Organizations

2008· article· en· W2139142990 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup & Organization Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Set (abstract data type)Organisation climateSocial psychologyApplied psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study highlights the importance of negative predictors of employee creativity. The authors identified a set of work environment characteristics that may inhibit employee creativity. Using data collected from 123 Canadian employees in various industries, the authors empirically tested the relationships between these inhibiting factors and peer-rated creative performance. Aversive leadership and unsupportive organizational climate were negatively related to creativity, whereas close monitoring was positively associated with creativity. Interaction analyses indicate that creative ability of employees may either enhance or attenuate the detrimental effects of inhibitory contextual factors. Complementing the existing studies that have largely focused on facilitators of creativity, the present study introduces a more balanced perspective to the organizational creativity literature by examining inhibitory contextual factors.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.273 · 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