MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166236632 · doi:10.1177/0018726710364163

The role of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model

2010· article· en· W2166236632 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

VenueHuman Relations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeviance (statistics)Procedural justicePsychologySocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial exchange theoryOrganizational justiceDistributive justiceInteractional justiceInterpersonal relationshipOrganizational commitmentEconomic JusticePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data collected on two occasions spaced apart by three months ( N = 602), we examined the relationships between a) distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal justice (measured at Time 1) and b) perceived organizational support (POS), leader—member exchange (LMX), and organization- and supervisor-directed deviance (measured at Time 2). We found that POS fully mediated the relationship of procedural justice but not distributive justice to organization-directed deviance. In addition, LMX fully mediated the relationships of informational justice and interpersonal justice to both supervisor-directed deviance and organization-directed deviance. The implications of these findings for the study of justice and social exchange relationships as predictors of workplace deviance 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · 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