MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886825252 · doi:10.2308/jmar-52220

The Importance of Task Complexity When Rewarding Nonfinancial Performance

2018· article· en· W2886825252 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Accounting Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)IncentiveBusinessFinanceActuarial scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this study, I investigate whether the effectiveness of rewarding performance of nonfinancial measures varies across levels of task complexity. I use a multi-period experiment where participants are assigned a highly or moderately complex task and an incentive contract where only financial measures or both financial and nonfinancial measures are rewarded. I find that in a moderately complex task, individuals perform better when only the financial measures are rewarded in the incentive contract. However, in a highly complex task, individuals perform better when both financial and nonfinancial measures are rewarded. Collectively, the results identify task complexity as an important task characteristic that impacts the effectiveness of incentives on nonfinancial measures of performance.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.290 · 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