The mediating role of resources in organizational support between human management practices and administrative contextual performance as an application to the food industry complex in the new Burj Al Arab city."
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many new management concepts have received the attention of researchers in the field of management and human resources, including the concept of contextual performance, which has received significant attention recently, requiring further studies. Based on the criteria of social exchange theory, this study developed a framework to analyze the mediating effect of organizational support (the mediating variable) on the relationship between HRM practices and administrative contextual performance (dependent variable). It is a descriptive and interpretive study conducted using a survey research design. Data were taken from 189 senior and middle managers of Burj Al Arab Food Industries (BAFI) through the stratified random sampling method. Quantitative data were analyzed through SPSS using Process Hayes Macro. The results showed a significant effect of HRM practices on organizational support (the mediating variable). In addition, HRM practices have a significant effect on performance when administrative contextual performance (dependent variable) is considered. Moreover, partial mediation of organizational support (the mediating variable) was found between HRM practices and the relationship with administrative contextual performance (dependent variable). The results indicated that there was a 57% variance in HRM on administrative contextual performance (dependent variable) in the presence of organizational support (the mediating variable). The results of this research will enhance the understanding of the relationship between the studied variables among the managers under study. The current research confirms the existence of a statistically significant relationship between the studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".