A dynamic phase model of psychological contract processes
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
Summary In formulating a dynamic model of psychological contract (PC) phases, this paper offers new insights by incorporating a temporal perspective into the study of the PC. Although conceptualized as a dynamic construct, little empirical attention has been directed at how PCs evolve and change over time. Moreover, conceptualization of the PC and its processes has undergone limited revision since the 1990s despite challenges to some of its tenets and advances in related fields that suggest the importance of time to such processes. In this article, we address limitations in existing theory, clarify the conceptualization of the PC, and bring dynamism to the forefront of PC theory building by emphasizing dynamic processes. We propose a phase‐based model of PC processes (intraphase and interphase) wherein the functions of key variables (e.g., promises, inducements, contributions, and obligations) change over time and context. These phases include creation, maintenance, renegotiation, and repair. This model directs attention to the dynamic nature of the PC, drawing on contemporary evidence regarding self‐regulatory mechanisms. Finally, we present the implications of this dynamic phase model for theory and research.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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