MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565376898 · doi:10.7202/1038871ar

Association between perceived level of autonomy and perceived behavioural control over resolving ethical dilemmas: A large N cross-sectional survey of Canadian civil servants

2017· article· en· W2565376898 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Steve Jacob, Mathieu Ouimet

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Gouvernance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsAutonomyCivil servantsPsychologyControl (management)Social psychologySurvey data collectionAssociation (psychology)Cross-sectional studySurvey researchApplied psychologyPolitical scienceMedicineManagementPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991), this study examines the relationship between the perceived level of autonomy among civil servants and their perceived behavioural control over the resolution process of work-related ethical dilemmas. To this end, we used a subset of the data from the 2008 Statistics Canada Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). This cross-sectional survey was conducted between November 3 and December 12, 2008. Approximately 170,000 employees responded to the survey, representing 66 percent of the 258,000 employees invited to participate. In summary, the perceived level of autonomy index is positively associated with the perceived behavioural control over the resolution of ethical dilemmas, as was theoretically expected.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.057 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue GouvernanceSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207