MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953167247 · doi:10.1177/0091026019855749

Public Service Motivation, Personality, and the Hiring Decisions of Public Managers: An Experimental Study

2019· article· en· W2953167247 on OpenAlex
Daniel E. Bromberg, Étienne Charbonneau

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

VenuePublic Personnel Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
FundersArizona State University
KeywordsPublic service motivationPersonalityPublic serviceHuman resourcesCover (algebra)Service (business)Human resource managementTest (biology)Public sectorBig Five personality traitsPublic relationsPsychologyBusinessWork (physics)MarketingManagementSocial psychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main practical recommendations from the copious public service motivation literature is that human resources (HR) professionals should use public service motivation (PSM) to assist in selecting candidates for public service jobs. To test if PSM is indeed attractive to HR professionals in selecting applicants to work in the public sector, 238 HR managers recruited from the International Public Management Association for Human Resources rated three cover letters and then rated themselves about PSM and the Big 5 personality traits. The cover letters were randomized on most likely combinations of PSM and Big 5, revealed in earlier research. Our results are that real HR professionals did not rate cover letters more highly when they displayed aspects of PSM.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.202 · 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