The reputation-related social media competence among employees in Germany, China and the U.S.: A cross-cultural scale validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whenever employees post something on social media they rely on the good judgment of other people to stop their posts ending up in the public domain, where it can hurt their employerâs reputation. With growing global social media use, cases of employeesâ imprudent social media use appear to be on the rise. This paper describes the first steps in the multi-country validation of the employeesâ company reputation-related social media competence (RSMC) scale. The RSMC scale contains five dimensions: technical competence, visibility awareness competence, knowledge competence, impact assessment competence, and social media communication competence. The present research assesses an abbreviated version of the RSMC scale, using data from three culturally distinct countriesâGermany, China, and the United Statesâas part of a wider research project into the cross-cultural generalizability of the RSMC scale. Preliminary findings suggest that the RSMC short scale is valid in all three national contexts and achieves partial metric invariance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".