MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Internal Marketing in Promoting Human Resource Ethics: An Analytical Study of the Mediating Role of Job Commitment and the Modifying Role of Leadership Skills Applied to Alexandria University Hospitals

2025· article· ar· W4411818373 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Saad Khalil El-Sherbiny

Bibliographic record

Venueالمجلة العلمية للدراسات والبحوث المالية والتجارية · 2025
Typearticle
Languagear
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsCanadiana.org
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational commitmentInternal marketingBusinessHuman resourcesHuman resource managementManagementResource (disambiguation)PsychologyPublic relationsKnowledge managementMarketingPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was driven by the central hypothesis that internal marketing plays a key role in promoting human resource ethics, both directly and indirectly through job commitment as a mediating variable. It also examined the moderating role of leadership skills within these relationships. The research was conducted on a sample of 320 employees from Alexandria University Hospitals, with data collected via questionnaires and a response rate of 92%. Structural equation modeling was used for data analysis. The findings revealed significant positive direct effects of internal marketing on both job commitment (coefficient = 0.558) and human resource ethics (coefficient = 0.244). Additionally, job commitment had a positive impact on HR ethics (coefficient = 0.299) and was shown to partially mediate the relationship between internal marketing and HR ethics (indirect effect = 0.543). Leadership skills were found to moderate these relationships, weakening the positive effects of internal marketing as leadership competence increased. The study confirmed all seven proposed hypotheses, supporting the theoretical framework. The findings emphasize the importance of implementing effective internal marketing strategies and enhancing leadership skills, particularly in critical sectors such as healthcare, to institutionalize ethical practices. Among the key recommendations was the development of an evaluation mode

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueالمجلة العلمية للدراسات والبحوث المالية والتجاريةSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207