Electronic participatory budgeting, budget emphasis, and job tension: Implications for managerial performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paradigm shift in local government financial management necessitates a change in the perspective of government officials, viewing them as financial managers. This study explores the intriguing aspect of assessing managerial performance, particularly in government organizations. The uniformity in reward structures, such as salary and benefits, irrespective of different workloads, adds to the interest in this investigation. To analyze these factors, a quantitative approach with Partial Least Squares (PLS) as an analytical tool and path analysis for mediation examination is employed. The target population for this study comprises employees from the planning division of the Central Sulawesi Government. A saturated sample is used as the sampling technique. Data collection involves distributing 180 questionnaires to gather relevant information. The results of this study reveal several important findings. Firstly, it tests the hypothesis that electronic participatory budgeting does not have a direct effect on work tension. Secondly, it demonstrates that budget emphasis has a direct effect on work tension. Thirdly, it concludes that work tension does not have a direct effect on managerial performance. Additionally, the study indicates that job tension does not mediate the effect of electronic participatory budgeting on managerial performance. However, work tensions are found to mediate the influence of budgetary emphasis on managerial 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".