Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the significance of social capital in a public organization according to two theoretical frameworks. Following the structural hole theory (Burt, 1992), a sparse social network enables employees to gain control and information benefits. According to the social capital theory (Coleman, 1988), a cohesive social network creates trust and an obligation to cooperate. The theories describe favorable outcomes of the opposite poles of social structure, but the discussion shows that the social capital might not be realized because of unfavorable contextual factors. Empirical findings indicate that a sparse ego network increases an employee's indirect control and that a dense work unit network increases trust in the democracy of decision making. The discussion suggests that a sparse social network might be most beneficial to a bureaucratic organization and that cohesiveness does not automatically induce commitment if it is not supported by favorable social norms. Unless prerequisites of social interaction are well secured, the organization faces the risk of having inadequate levels of social cohesion, which might impede the creation of social capital. In conclusion, the management is faced with the challenge of social liabilities arising from both social cohesion and the lack of it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".