MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588919389 · doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12140

High‐performance work systems and employee engagement: empirical evidence from China

2017· article· en· W2588919389 on OpenAlexaff
Yufang Huang, Zhenzhong Ma, Yong Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesJiangnan University
KeywordsEmployee engagementJob satisfactionWork systemsMoodEmployee researchContext (archaeology)Human resource managementBusinessEmpirical evidenceAffect (linguistics)ChinaEmployee resource groupsPsychologyEmpirical researchPublic relationsSocial psychologyWork (physics)ManagementPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employee engagement and commitment has been a very important issue in human resource managers’ agenda. The present study adds to the literature by examining the impact of high‐performance work systems ( HPWS ) on employee attitudes and on employee engagement in China in response to the increasing interest in the universalistic effects of HPWS in the globalized world market. With the data from 782 employees working in China's manufacturing and service sectors, this study shows that HPWS are positively related to employees’ positive mood and job satisfaction, and that job satisfaction and positive mood lead to high employee engagement. Moreover, employee's positive mood and job satisfaction also mediate the relationship between HPWS and employee engagement. The result helps explore one mechanism via which HPWS affect employee behaviors and provides empirical evidence for the applicability of HPWS in an international context.

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)0.002
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations156
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Human ResourcesSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207