MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967719167 · doi:10.1108/cms-09-2018-0683

Self-reflection and employee creativity

2019· article· en· W2967719167 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

VenueChinese Management Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityModerationPsychologyOriginalityStructural equation modelingReflection (computer programming)Social psychologyValue (mathematics)Affect (linguistics)Sample (material)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to examine the effect of self-reflection on employee creativity in China. The authors identify individual intellectual capital (IIC) as a mediator and concerns for face as a moderator for this relationship. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 351 dyads of full-time employees and their immediate supervisors from various Chinese companies were surveyed. Regression analysis and structural equation modeling were used to test the research model. Findings Three dimensions of self-reflection significantly affect IIC and subsequently lead to employee creativity; IIC mediates the relationship between three dimensions of self-reflection and employee creativity; concern for face negatively moderates the effect of IIC on employee creativity. Practical implications Managers can facilitate employees’ creativity by motivating them to conduct self-reflection and develop IIC, and by nurturing a safe atmosphere that allows individuals to take risks without losing face. Originality/value This is one of the first empirical studies to investigate the mediating effects of IIC and the moderating effects of concerns for face on the relationship between self-reflection and 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)0.000
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.363 · 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