The Relationship between Social Capital and Sales Agents’ Performance
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
Much of the previous literature has focused on reviewing social capital to discuss its impact, even the profit or loss, but social capital research still has a gap, that is, the possible different mechanisms of its influence process. In view of this gap, this study differs from previous studies by further discussing the various possibilities that may affect the relationship between the social capital and job performance of sales agents. This study discusses whether the relationship between social capital and job performance is affected by corporate social responsibility (CSR), workplace friendship, and proactive personality. Therefore, the purposive sampling method is adopted, where the research object is the full-time sales agents in Taiwan’s finance and insurance brokerage industry.The results of this study showed a positive relationship exists between four conditions: social capital and job performance, corporate social responsibility strengthening social capital and job performance, workplace friendship strengthening social capital and job performance, and proactive personality strengthening social capital and job 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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