Exploration of the organizational citizenship phenomenon in Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) at two levels of theory and within Lebanon. First, a group level conceptualization of this construct (i.e., Collective Citizenship Behavior or CCB ) is theoretically developed based on an isomorphic model of emergence. Second, a qualitative pilot study examines the meaning and applicability of OCB. Results of this study suggest that OCB is a meaningful construct in this Arab context however cultural nuances and possible emic OCB dimensions are identified both in general and in times of war.\nThird, a single level quantitative study is conducted where CCB was found to have emerged in 57 of the 62 groups sampled (mean rwg(j) = 0.86). Further, a confirmatory factor analysis suggests that Williams and Anderson's (1991) distinction of OCB-I and OCB-O applies at the group level of analysis (CCB-I and CCB-O). This study also suggests that between group differences in cohesiveness are positively related to CCB-I ( r = 0.79, t (42) = 8.12, p < 0.001).\nFinally, a cross-level study relating CCB, OCB, and cultural orientation (i.e., allocentrism versus idiocentrism; Triandis, 1989) is tested using hierarchical linear modeling (Bryk, Radenbush, Cogdon, 1994). The relationships tested and their corresponding results are that: (1) the individual-level relationships between the dimensions of cultural orientation and OCB suggest that where allocentrism is not related to employee OCB in Lebanon; idiocentrism is positively related (γ10 =0.20, se =0.08, t (47) = 2.54, p < 0.05). (2) A cross-level main effect of CCB on OCB was found (γ01 =0.56, se =0.18, t (46) = 3.06, p < 0.01) indicating that individuals will display higher levels of OCB in groups with higher levels of CCB. Finally, (3) a cross-level moderating influence of CCB on the relationship between idiocentrism and OCB was not found suggesting that the level of CCB does not moderate this relationship in this sample.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".