MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614986701 · doi:10.3390/su9050834

The Relationship between Training Satisfaction and the Readiness to Transfer Learning: The Mediating Role of Normative Commitment

2017· article· en· W2614986701 on OpenAlexaff
Jamal Ben Mansour, Abdelhadi Naji, André Leclerc

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalization (economics)NormativeMediationAbsenteeismObligationPsychologyRelation (database)Training (meteorology)Social psychologyMoral obligationOrganizational commitmentComputer scienceManagementPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations are becoming increasingly demanding in regard to training cost rationalization and justification, and to the associated result achievement obligation. In practice, these pressures result in the introduction of more or less adequate efficiency indicators in relation to training programs. The goal of this study is to understand the relationship between training and training efficiency indicators at the individual level, using a mediation model. This study proposes a three-factor mediation model estimated using a databank of 578 cases. The results first show a positive relation between training satisfaction and normative commitment. Normative commitment has a positive effect on readiness to transfer learning and a negative effect on absenteeism. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in light of these findings.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207