The Moderating Effects of Leader-Member Exchange for Technology Acceptance
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
Within the technology acceptance literature, the issue of top management support and commitment has been studied extensively; however, the issue of leadership per se has not been addressed directly. A missing piece of the leadership puzzle as it relates to technology acceptance is an exploration of how top management support gets translated in the organizational hierarchy. This study introduces leader-member exchange (LMX) to better understand this missing piece. Specifically, this research explores the role direct supervisors play in the acceptance process by end users based on the moderated model of LMX and supervisor influence. The empirical test results in the field setting show that LMX is a significant moderator for most of the technology acceptance variables within organizations. The study explores the role of the quality of the relationship between supervisors and employees as end users. It also highlights the role of LMX and supervisor influence as a conduit for the acceptance process among end users in the organization.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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