Mapping the relationship between proactive behavior and talent management practices: The mediating role of organizational commitment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a diverse and modern organization with high extent of competitiveness within the market, maintaining high performance is of necessity. Talent management practices, when implied and used properly can significantly contribute to an organizations’ degree of overall performance as it has been noted throughout the literature. Employees and individuals seeking professional careers are required to cope with fast-changing environments of their workplaces. The need to constantly improve oneself is a dire one. Current research paper analyzes mediation effect of organizational commitment on the relationship between proactive personality and talent management practices from employee perspective of university academic and administrative staff. Mediation regression analysis (PROCESS) has been used to analyze the gathered data from universities located in North Cyprus, and the accumulated results show a full mediation effect from organizational commitment on the aforementioned relationship. The study contributes to the literature through expansion of proposed model in context of talent management and proactive personality as well as analytical method alongside context of academia. Furthermore, this study provides tangible implications, which can be beneficial for university decision-makers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it