The Effects of Profit-Sharing Contract and Feedback on the Sustainability of Cooperation
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
ABSTRACT: This study experimentally examines how the size of a profit-sharing contract offered to a pair of employees and a feedback system that provides information on individual employee cooperativeness affect the sustainability of cooperation. Both the larger profit-sharing contract and the feedback system do not provide explicit economic incentives for cooperation. We find that when there is no feedback system, a larger profit-sharing contract increases the sustainability of cooperation as well as employees’ self-reported reciprocity to the experimental firm and trust in fellow employee. Introducing the feedback system improves the sustainability of cooperation and employees’ self-reported trust in fellow employee. However, the feedback system reduces the positive impact of a larger profit-sharing contract on cooperation sustainability. Our results suggest that firms can rely on increased profit-sharing and feedback, rather than explicit economic incentives for cooperation, to motivate sustained cooperation and improve interpersonal trust.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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