Using the Internet for Organizational Research: A Study of Cynicism in the Workplace
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
The Internet can be a valuable data collection tool for organizational psychology researchers. It can be less expensive than traditional paper-and-pencil survey methods, and the potential pool of participants is much larger. In addition, it can be used in situations where traditional data collection methods are not feasible, such as research involving sensitive issues such as negative employee attitudes or deviant behaviors at work. In this study, we examined the organizational attitudes of employees from various companies using (a) a snowball sample, who completed a traditional paper and pencil survey (n = 135), and (b) a sample recruited over the Internet, who completed an on-line survey (n = 220). Participants in both the non-Internet and the Internet group were asked to describe a negative incident involving their company, and answer a number of questions regarding how they felt about their company and how they behaved toward their company following the negative event. They also completed measures of organizational cynicism and job satisfaction. The two groups were compared on demographic characteristics and on their attitudes toward their organization. There were very few demographic differences between the two groups. The Internet group tended to be more cynical and to judge their organization more harshly than the non-Internet group; however, the response patterns of both groups were similar. These results suggest that, when used with caution, the Internet can be a viable method of conducting organizational research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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