MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156914104 · doi:10.2308/jmar-50729

The Interactive Effects of <i>Ex Post</i> Goal Adjustment and Goal Difficulty on Performance

2014· article· en· W2156914104 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Accounting Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEx-anteGoal settingProcedural justicePsychologyGoal orientationPerceptionSocial psychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Despite the common use of performance goals to motivate employees and the use of ex post goal adjustments to filter out the effects of unforeseen and uncontrollable events, minimal research has examined the consequences of employing them jointly. We predict that the availability of ex post goal adjustments will have a positive effect on performance and that this effect will be stronger when the ex ante goal difficulty level is moderate rather than difficult. Moreover, we predict that these effects will be mediated by perceptions of procedural justice. Results from an experiment completed by 142 undergraduate students support our predictions. The availability of ex post goal adjustments has positive effects on procedural fairness perceptions and performance under the moderate goal, but has no such effects under the difficult goal. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · 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