MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167057323 · doi:10.1177/1059601114560062

Building Employee Relationships Through Corporate Social Responsibility

2014· article· en· W2167057323 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

VenueGroup & Organization Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustCynicismCorporate social responsibilityContext (archaeology)PerceptionSocial psychologyPsychologySample (material)Public relationsWork (physics)BusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the role of deeply held beliefs, known as social axioms, in the context of employee–organization relationships. Specifically, we examine how the beliefs identified as social cynicism and reward for application moderate the relationship between employees’ work-related experiences, perceptions of CSR, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward their firm. Utilizing a sample of 130 retail employees, we find that CSR affects more positively employees low on social cynicism and reduces distrust more so than with cynical employees. Employees exhibiting strong reward for application are less positively affected by CSR, whereas their experiences of other work-related factors are more likely to reduce distrust. Our findings suggest the need for a differentiated view of CSR in the context of employee studies and offer suggestions for future research and management practice.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.210 · 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