MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883712653 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n8p163

Relationships between Interpersonal Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Workplace: The Mediational Role of Prosocial Motives

2018· article· en· W2883712653 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weixu Ding, Eugene Choi, Atsushi Aoyama

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsocial behaviorPsychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyInterpersonal relationshipEmpirical researchKnowledge sharingTest (biology)Knowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is different from the usual cases that testing the intuitive factor as rewarding that affects the employees’ knowledge sharing. In this study, the focus shifts to concentrating on the emotional factors such as interpersonal trust and the prosocial motives. Empirical methods are used to test the hypotheses, and the results show that interpersonal trust affects employees’ knowledge sharing significantly. Moreover, the prosocial motives have been evidenced that it moderately mediates the relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. This study has well evidenced all the hypotheses and gives suggestions for the future research at the end.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207