MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334709139 · doi:10.1177/2041386612461665

How perceptions of fairness can change

2012· article· en· W2334709139 on OpenAlex
David A. Jones, Daniel P. Skarlicki

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

VenueOrganizational Psychology Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyPerspective (graphical)CognitionOrganizational justiceSocial psychologyEconomic JusticeProcess (computing)Event (particle physics)Procedural justiceCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on organizational justice has focused almost exclusively on fairness at one point in time. This perspective severely limits our understanding because fairness perceptions can continually evolve as individuals encounter new information. We present a dynamic model of organizational justice in which we integrate current justice theories with research on sense-making and social cognition to describe the processes through which perceptions of fairness change. The model describes a cyclical process whereby individuals' cognitive processing and judgments about the fairness of an event are guided by their perceptions about the entity involved. In turn, event judgments alter the knowledge structure that underlies entity perceptions, which has implications for perception change. Implications and suggestions for future research 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.243 · 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