Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study of the occurrence of loyalty within a formal organization. It does not purport to be an analysis of all forms of loyalty but rather it seeks to reveal a particular type of loyalty within a hierarchical organization. Putting it more sharply, this thesis investigates the occurrence of subordinate loyalty toward a superior. The object of the study was twofold: (1) to investigate the acceptability of the definition of loyalty within a theoretical scheme as proposed by Blau and Scott in their recent book Formal Organizations and (2) to attempt to isolate and investigate those conditions and factors which may be related to felt subordinate loyalty toward a superior. The method of investigation took the form of distributing a mail questionnaire to the employees of one of the divisions within a publicly owned electrical utility. The replies to the questionnaire were tabulated and are presented in the body of the thesis. The general conclusions reached were as follows: 1. The Blau and Scott definition of loyalty seems to be too narrow. 2. Superiors who command the felt loyalty of their subordinates are more likely than others to establish effective informal authority over them and thus to influence them. 3. The more that a superior perceives himself as maintaining emotional detachment, the greater is the felt loyalty of his subordinates. 4. A supervisor who is consistent in his enforcement of the working rules and practises will be more likely to gain the loyalty of his subordinates. The following hypotheses were not statistically supported. 1. The more independent a supervisor is from his superior, the more likely it is that he will have loyal subordinates. 2. Loyalty to superiors in a hierarchical organization tends to be pronounced on alternate levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".