MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921933504 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.2.013

The mediating effect of knowledge sharing among intrinsic motivation, high-performance work system and authentic leadership on university faculty members’ creativity

2019· article· en· W2921933504 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyAuthentic leadershipIntrinsic motivationWork (physics)Knowledge sharingWork motivationKnowledge managementSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this research was to investigate the relationship among intrinsic motivation, authentic leadership and high-performance work system (HPWS) on university faculty members with the mediating role of knowledge sharing. A total of 286 full-time faculty members of public universities from 30 universities of Punjab, Pakistan were interviewed using a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, adapted from the literature. The results of PLS-SEM indicate that authentic leadership and HPWS had a significant effect on faculty member's creativity whereas intrinsic motivation showed an insignificant relationship with creativity. Results further highlight that knowledge sharing mediated the relationship between HPWS and employee's creativity, however, no mediation effect was found for intrinsic motivation and authentic leadership with employee creativity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.184 · 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