MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211001317 · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i1/12056

A 59 Years (1962-2021) Bibliometric Analysis of Organizational Support Research Articles

2022· article· en· W4211001317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brenda Ranee Francis, Rusli bin Ahmad, Siti Mariam binti Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingScopusOrganizational analysisPublish or perishPublishingBibliometricsLibrary scienceYearbookCitationPublicationManagementPolitical scienceKnowledge managementSociologySocial scienceComputer scienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizational support is an administrative concern that emphasises well-being and appreciates employees' contributions.This study aims to determine the revolution of organizational support through published articles.This study employed 3 bibliometric analysis methods: descriptive analysis using Microsoft Excel, citation analysis using Publish or Perish software, and VOSviewer visualisation mapping.A total of 5527 articles within the last six decades (1962 -2021) were retrieved from the Scopus database for analysis.A majority of the articles were published in the United States of America in the areas of Business, Management, and Accounting.Based on the review, the annual article publication trend has significantly increased each year.The University of Toronto was the most influential institution publishing organizational support articles, whereas, Robert Eisenberger is a wellknown author in this area.Also, the International Journal of Human Resource Management is an active source in this topic and Taylor & Francis is a well-known thriving publisher."Perceived Organizational Support" is the most popular article in this field.The information obtained from this study can be utilised by organizations, organizational policymakers, and researchers to identify future research gaps.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.1520.116
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social SciencesSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207