MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954792779 · doi:10.1002/mar.21241

An examination of the congruence and incongruence between employee actual and customer perceived emotional labor

2019· article· en· W2954792779 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

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmotional Labor in Professions
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCongruence (geometry)PsychologyEmotional laborBusinessSocial psychologyCustomer delightCustomer retentionCustomer serviceMarketingService (business)Service quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines the effects of the congruence and incongruence between employee actual and customer perceived emotional labor on customer trust. Based on data collected from 510 service employee and customer dyads in restaurants, the results of response surface modeling indicate that customer trust is higher when employee deep acting and customer perceived deep acting are both high rather than both low. Customer trust is also higher when customer perceived deep acting is higher than employee actual deep acting rather than vice versa. The effects are different in surface acting: as employee surface acting and customer perceived surface acting increase, customer trust initially decreases, then increases, exhibiting a U‐shaped effect. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.327 · 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