Creation of the algorithmic management questionnaire: A six‐phase scale development process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is an increasing body of research on algorithmic management (AM), but the field lacks measurement tools to capture workers' experiences of this phenomenon. Based on existing literature, we developed and validated the algorithmic management questionnaire (AMQ) to measure the perceptions of workers regarding their level of exposure to AM. Across three samples (overall n = 1332 gig workers), we show the content, factorial, discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity of the scale. The final 20‐item scale assesses workers' perceived level of exposure to algorithmic: monitoring, goal setting, scheduling, performance rating, and compensation. These dimensions formed a higher order construct assessing overall exposure to algorithmic management, which was found to be, as expected, negatively related to the work characteristics of job autonomy and job complexity and, indirectly, to work engagement. Supplementary analyses revealed that perceptions of exposure to AM reflect the objective presence of AM dimensions beyond individual variations in exposure. Overall, the results suggest the suitability of the AMQ to assess workers' perceived exposure to algorithmic management, which paves the way for further research on the impacts of these rapidly accelerating systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".