Literature Review on Motivational Profiles: A Person-centred Approach to Motivation
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
This paper reviews past literature on motivation, with a focus on the person-centred approach. Through reviewing the conceptualisation and development of motivation research, it analyses the theory and method of motivational profiles, and discusses its real-life implications. This paper finds that the person-centred approach provides insights for many abstract key performance indicators, ranging from employees’ work attitude to affective commitment, to an embracement of ownership culture. Intervention programs based on this approach also showed not higher adaptation to stress, stronger perceived organization support, and stronger team motivation. Employees also reflected stronger individual’s identification with team values and their purpose in work. Practically speaking, research findings have strong implications in workplace hiring, in that motivational profile highlights person-environment fit as an antecedent for enhancing high-quality motivation. However, due to its recent emergence, more research is needed for more solid consensus in how profiles are identified and how they interact in different industry contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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