An Examination of the Funding-Finding Relation in the Field of Management
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
Research in the field of medicine has indicated that the presence of research funding can lead to conflicts of interest, resulting in pressures to produce results that are palatable to the funding agency. Using a funding source typology, we examine if similar conflicts of interest exist in the field of management by analyzing over 156,000 effect sizes reported in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology from 1980-2010. In addition, we investigate the potential moderating impacts of funding type, bivariate relation type, as well as their interaction on the funding-finding relation. Results indicate that effect size magnitude is not impacted by the presence or source of research funding across broad bivariate relation type. However, funded studies have a higher proportion of statistically significant findings (69% of comparisons) and were also characterized by larger sample sizes (75% of comparisons). The pattern of results supports a methodological enhancement explanation for the funding-finding relation rather than a questionable research practices-based explanation. We conclude with recommendations for future research in this area.
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 | 0.030 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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