MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257490621 · doi:10.1177/0886368715598197

A Global Study of Pay Preferences and Employee Characteristics

2015· article· en· W2257490621 on OpenAlexaff
Dow Scott, Michelle Brown, John Shields, Richard J. Long, Conny H. Antoni, Ewa Beck-Krala, Ana M. Lucia‐Casademunt, Stephen J. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueCompensation & Benefits Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceTransparency (behavior)BusinessDemographic economicsWillingness to payWork (physics)Pay for performanceMarketingLabour economicsEconomicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Companies are managing more diverse work forces, and pay systems must be designed to attract, retain and motivate employees who may have very different pay preferences from employees of even a decade ago. This study examines how employee characteristics (i.e., gender, age, education, work experience, annual pay and number of dependents) are related to pay preferences. We found that older respondents with more education and more dependents had a stronger preference for variable pay than did respondents who were younger, less educated and had fewer dependents. Older respondents and those with higher pay preferred less pay transparency than did younger and lower paid respondents. Pay differences based on capability were preferred by better educated employees. When controlling for the other demographic characteristic, we found significant differences among nationalities for all four measures of pay preferences, that is, pay differences, pay variability, bonus plans and pay transparency.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompensation & Benefits ReviewSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207