MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998979642 · doi:10.1177/0734371x19896013

Municipal Employees’ Performance and Neglect: The Effects of Mission Valence

2020· article· en· W2998979642 on OpenAlex
Sylvie Guerrero, Denis Chênevert

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Public Personnel Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCynicismNeglectValence (chemistry)Negativity effectPsychologySocial psychologyMeaning (existential)PerceptionPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article relates mission valence to two performance outcomes of municipal employees: task performance and neglect. We propose that mission valence is positively associated with task performance through perceptions of meaning, and negatively associated with neglect through cynicism. However, based on the negativity bias principle, we expect the relationships to be stronger through cynicism than through meaning. We test our research hypotheses on a sample of 177 employees and their supervisors working in a rural Canadian municipality. Findings highlight that cynicism is a key mediating variable between mission valence and employees’ performance outcomes. Mission valence affects meaning and cynicism, but meaning is not related to task performance and neglect.

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)0.001
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 score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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