Psychological contracts: enhancing understanding of the expatriation experience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this introduction, we undertake a critical review of the state of research examining psychological contracts (PCs) as they pertain to the experience of expatriation and expatriates. Though expatriation as an activity has diversified greatly in recent decades – with the growth of self-initiated expatriation, more short-term, flexible and commuter assignments and a broadening of the expatriate profile with a wider range of people choosing to expatriate – there has been limited research published thus far examining expatriates’ perceptions of their PC and how it is affected by working inter-culturally. This introduction briefly traces the history of PC research and expatriates/expatriation and the employment relationship, and then considers the extant research specifically examining PCs in relation to expatriates/expatriation. The articles included in the special issue address a range of areas identified in the call for papers and provide valuable insights into expatriation and expatriates’ experience including: expatriate PC breach; expatriate PC fulfilment; pre- and post-assignment PC as perceived by repatriates; PC of flexpatriates; and, episodic formation of expatriate PCs. Given the relatively underexplored area of expatriate/expatriation-related PC research, the special issue establishes a platform for undertaking future research in this field.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it