The Characteristics of Necessity, Commoner, and Parasite with Multicultural Data Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three different types of employees can be found in workplaces all over the world: “Necessities,” “Commoners,” and “Parasites.” A person is a Necessity if s/he is irreplaceable and crucial to the functioning of an organization. A Commoner is a person of normal ability and talent who has no significant impact on organizational success. Parasites are detrimental freeloaders who damage the functioning of an organization. To identify the principal characteristics of these three types of workers, a group of researchers led by Chong W. Kim conducted six studies in which they collected survey data from undergraduate and graduate business students in the U.S., India, Korea, Chile, and Japan. The results of this research effort are reported in Kim & Sikula (2005), Kim & Sikula (2006), Kim, Sikula & Smith (2006), Kim, Cho & Sikula (2007), Kim, Arias- Bolzmann & Smith (2008), and Kim, Arias-Bolzmann & Magoshi (2009). The summary of these six studies has been reported in Kim, Smith, Sikula & Anderson (2011). The purpose of this article is to compare the results of the summary study with a new set of data, which was collected from a multicultural student body. The authors note the points of commonality between the data sets and offer their thoughts on future research in this area.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".