MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159725698 · doi:10.1177/104649640203300204

Role Efficacy, Role Clarity, and Role Performance Effectiveness

2002· article· en· W2159725698 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

VenueSmall Group Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYPsychologyModerationContext (archaeology)Social psychologySelf-efficacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of the study was to examine role clarity as a moderator of the role efficacy-role performance relationship. A secondary issue was to investigate the influence of role clarity on role efficacy and role performance. On the basis of Bandura’s theorizing, it was hypothesized that role efficacy should be a good predictor of role performance effectiveness only under conditions of high role clarity. Individuals reporting higher role clarity were expected to be more efficacious and perform better than those with lower role clarity. Consistent with hypotheses, role clarity moderated the prospective relationship between role efficacy and role performance effectiveness in the predicted direction for offensive role functions. Individuals who reported higher role clarity also reported higher role efficacy and performed better than those with lower role clarity. Results are discussed in the context of self-efficacy theory. Further prospective examinations, as well as experimental designs, are recommended.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.232 · 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