MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377004913 · doi:10.7202/1095898ar

Les liens entre la personnalité et les valeurs organisationnelles

2023· article· fr· W4377004913 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

VenueHumain et Organisation · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le concept de valeur a gagné une certaine popularité dans la sélection du personnel. Plusieurs études se sont intéressées aux liens entre les valeurs individuelles et de travail et la personnalité (Dawis, 1991 ; Fischer & Boer, 2015 ; Furnham, Petrides, Tsaousis, Pappas, & Garrod, 2005 ; Leuty & Hansen, 2012 ; Parks & Guay, 2009 ; Parks-Leduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2015 ; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002 ; Rokeach, 1973). Or, très peu d’études avant la nôtre s’étant intéressée au lien entre les valeurs organisationnelles et les cinq grands facteurs de personnalité (Big Five), nous en avons fait l’objet de notre recherche. Notre échantillon est composé de 1 306 travailleurs qui ont complété un inventaire de personnalité et un test de valeurs organisationnelles dans le cadre de processus de sélection. Les résultats obtenus par le biais des régressions logistiques montrent que le niveau de présence des différents facteurs de personnalité a une influence sur la probabilité que certaines valeurs organisationnelles se situent parmi les valeurs prioritaires des individus.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.008

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · 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