MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933342817 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2019.094

Connections with Coworkers on Social Network Sites: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2019· article· en· W2933342817 on OpenAlexafffund
Ariane Ollier‐Malaterre, Annie Foucreault

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClosenessFriendshipSocial psychologyPsychologySocial network (sociolinguistics)Social mediaComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large number of individuals are connected with their coworkers on social network sites (SNS) that are personal and professional (e.g., Facebook), with consequences on workplace relationships. Drawing on SNS, social identity and boundary management literatures, we surveyed 202 employees and found that coworkers’ friendship-acts (e.g., liking, commenting) were positively associated with closeness to coworkers when coworkers were of the same age or older than the focal individual, and with organizational citizenship behaviors towards coworkers (OCBI) when coworkers were of the same age. Harmful behaviors from coworkers (e.g., disparaging comment) were negatively associated with closeness (but not with OBCI) when coworkers were older than the focal individual. In addition, preferences for the segmentation of one’s professional and personal roles moderated the relationship between coworkers’ friendship-acts and OCBI (but not closeness) such that the positive relationship was stronger when the focal individual had low (vs. high) preferences for segmentation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0080.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207