MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238914411 · doi:10.1504/ijbge.2021.113939

Modelling managers' and subordinates' ethical behaviour on performance

2021· article· en· W4238914411 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Governance and Ethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of our study is to ascertain whether organisational team ethical standards (which eventually impact the organisational performance) are impacted by the managers' and subordinates' ethical behaviour separately. A field study was conducted based on data collected from managers and employees working in companies located in Istanbul. A structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was performed to test our hypotheses. The study results show a strong relationship between managers' and subordinates' ethical behaviours and firm performance. Our study also found the reversed effects where employees' ethical behaviour influences organisational team ethical standards. Finally the results show that organisational team ethical standards partially mediate the relationship between managers' individual's ethical behaviours and firm performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.285 · 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