Nexus between idiosyncratic deals and work engagement via psychological empowerment: A PLS-SEM approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiosyncratic deals have been used by many organizations to achieve desirable employees' behavior and work-related positive outcomes.Drawing upon the social exchange theory, this study aims at investigating the connections between idiosyncratic deals and work engagement.Besides, this study also scrutinizes the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between idiosyncratic deals and work engagement.This study applied smart PLS-SEM v.3.2 for the data analysis to ascertain the relationship between the study variables.Using an online survey, data are collected from 310 academicians working in the public higher education institutions of Pakistan.The finding of this study shows a significant positive relationship between idiosyncratic deals and work engagement.Furthermore, finding of the study also divulges that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between idiosyncratic deals and work engagement.Hence the management and the policy makers in the public higher education institutions should focus on the provision of idiosyncratic deals based on the personal and professional needs of academicians to strengthen their feeling of psychological empowerment which subsequently results in fostering their engagement at work.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".