MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183115448

LOOKING AT THE FACTORS AFFECTING CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATION: AN UNDERSTUDY LEADING TO A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

2012· article· en· W2183115448 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Cotae, Halia Valladares Montemayor

Bibliographic record

VenueDergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual modelConceptual frameworkComputer sciencePsychologySociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to present and group an array of factors that are affecting employee related conflicts within organizations. Understanding sources of conflict has been a subject matter that raises interest from academics, professionals and managers alike. Extant research has shown that conflict is an essential characteristic of learning organizations and a certain level of it should be tolerated as it is often the medium of knowledge transfer to and from individuals. The difficulty arises when managers do not understand, or are able to identify, the sources, the clusters and the ensuing factors generating conflict and as such their efforts to choose between resolution and managing conflict are rendered inutile and without focus. The identification and grouping or such factors becomes an imperative and needs a general framework that could be applied and adapted to each organization regardless of industry. We therefore identify the following clusters of factors affecting conflict: environmental, individual and firm related factors based on which we issue propositions and managerial implications

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDergiPark (Istanbul University)Same topicConflict Management and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207