MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shaping Tomorrow’s Workplace by Integrating Self-Determination Theory

2023· book-chapter· en· W4321607718 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Forest, Marc‐Antoine Gradito Dubord, Anja H. Olafsen, Joëlle Carpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Work motivationCompensation (psychology)MacroJob satisfactionPsychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyRedistribution (election)Self-determination theoryWork (physics)Political scienceComputer scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Self-determination theory (SDT) has proven to be a versatile and useful theory when applied to the work setting. This chapter addresses the various consequences of the different types of work motivation and psychological need satisfaction and frustration by reviewing recent meta-analyses and research on these subjects. It then presents the research efforts that have been done on three different streams of basic psychological needs’ antecedents: compensation, interpersonal relationship/leadership, and job design. Discussing total pay, inequities, and transparency as well as wealth and taxes as a duty for redistribution, the chapter opens up the debate about how SDT can be used not only for organizational research but also for studying macro topics related to the job market and the economy in general. It concludes by arguing that SDT has established itself as one of the leading theories of work motivation.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207