L’influence de la rémunération fixe sur la motivation autonome au travers du soutien organisationnel perçu et ses conséquences en termes d’engagement et de satisfaction au travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article, en mobilisant la théorie de l’auto-détermination, a pour objectif d’une part de comprendre comment le niveau de rémunération fixe peut influencer la motivation autonome et d’autre part d’examiner les conséquences de la motivation autonome sur l’engagement puis la satisfaction au travail. Les mécanismes qui interviennent dans la relation entre la rémunération fixe et la satisfaction au travail, sont (1) le support organisationnel perçu (SOP) par les salariés, (2) leur motivation autonome et (3) leur engagement au travail. Les résultats de l’étude menée sur un échantillon de 147 salariés d’une coopérative vinicole supportent l’hypothèse que le SOP médiatise totalement la relation entre la rémunération fixe et la motivation autonome, de telle sorte que la rémunération influence positivement la motivation au travers de son effet sur le SOP. Cette recherche supporte également les hypothèses que la motivation autonome médiatise totalement la relation entre le SOP et l’engagement, puis que l’engagement médiatise totalement la relation entre la motivation autonome et la satisfaction au travail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".