In Pursuit of Impact: How Psychological Contract Research Can Make the Work-World a Better Place
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
This paper is the result of the collective work undertaken by a group of Psychological Contract (PC) and Sustainability scholars from around the world, following the 2023 Bi-Annual PC Small Group Conference (Kedge Business School, Bordeaux, France). As part of the conference, scholars engaged in a workshop designed to generate expert guidance on how to aid the PC field to be better aligned with the needs of practice, and thus, impact the creation and maintenance of high-quality and sustainable exchange processes at work. In accordance with accreditation bodies for higher education, research impact is not limited to academic papers alone but also includes practitioners, policymakers, and students in its scope. This paper therefore incorporates elements from an impact measurement tool for higher education in management so as to explore how PC scholars can bolster the beneficial influence of PC knowledge on employment relationships through different stakeholders and means. Accordingly, our proposals for the pursuit of PC impact are organized in three parts: (1) research, (2) practice and society, and (3) students. Further, this paper contributes to the emerging debate on sustainable PCs by developing a construct definition and integrating PCs with an ‘ethics of care’ perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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