An empirical investigation on relationship between social capital and organizational commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an empirical investigation to study the relationship between social capital and organizational commitment.The study considers the relationship between social capital with three components of organizational commitment; namely, affective commitment, continuous and normative commitment.The study has been applied among a sample of 292 regular employees who worked for an Iranian bank located in city of Tehran, Iran.The implementation of Pearson correlation has indicated that there were positive and meaningful relationships between social capital and affective commitment (r = 0.197, Sig.= 0.01), continuous (r = 0.308, Sig.= 0.01) and normative commitment (r = 0.423, Sig.= 0.01).In addition, the study has detected that women had more commitment on their organization than men did.The proposed study of this paper has also considered a regression model where organizational commitment is dependent variable and trust and communication are considered as independent variables.According to the results of regression analysis, an increase of one unit in trust and social capital communication will increase organizational commitment by 0.189 and 0.204, respectively.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".