Kültürün Psikolojik Hareketliliğe Etkisi: Türk Ve Kanadalı Akademisyenlerin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi (The Effects of Culture on Psychological Mobility:Comparative Analyses of Turkish and Canadian Academicians)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turkish Abstract: Bu makalede, kulturun, psikolojik hareketlilige etkisi incelenmistir. Arastirma 277’si Turk ve 105’i Kanadali olmak uzere toplam 382 akademisyen uzerinde yapilmistir. Arastirmada kultur, yatay ve dikey bireycilik ile yatay ve dikey toplulukculuk olmak uzere 4 boyutu iceren INDCOL olcegiile olculmustur. Psikolojik hareketliliginin olcumunde ise, sinirsiz tutum ve orgut tercihi iki alt boyutunu iceren sinirsiz kariyer tutumu olcegi kullanilmistir. Veri bagimsiz t-testi, korelasyon ve regresyon analizleri kullanilarak analiz edilmistir. Calismada elde edilen sonuclara gore, Kanadali ve Turk akademisyenler arasinda hem psikolojik hareketliligi hem de kulturun boyutlari acisindan farklilik vardir. Buna ek olarak, kulturun kariyer hareketliligi uzerinde etkili oldugu ve Turk akademisyenlerin Kanadali akademisyenlere gore daha fazla toplulukcu ve daha fazla orgutlerinde kalma egilimine sahip olduklari bulunmustur English Abstract: The present study comparatively examines the effects of culture on psychological mobility of academicians in Turkey and Canada. Questionnaires were completed by 382 respondents, of them 277 Turkish and 105 Canadian. Data were collected using INDCOL for measuring the four cultural dimensions. Psychological mobility that consisted of boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preference was measured using the Boundaryless Career Attitude Scale. Findings of the study revealed that there were differences between Turkish and Canadian academicians in terms of four cultural dimensions and psychological mobility. It was also found that culture has influence on psychological mobility. Turkish academicians were more collectivist and had higher organizational mobility preference than Canadian counterparts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".