Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews twenty organizational culture questionnaires to identify the common cultural dimensions tapped and the level of psychometric support for these dimensions. Conceptual overlaps between questionnaires bring to the fore four core dimensions of organizational culture. Nevertheless, no instrument covers with precision and exhaustiveness these four conceptual domains. Moreover, psychometric support for most instruments is weak. Consequently, the paper describes a new culture measure (ECO) able to capture the commonality among cultural dimensions. The instrument was tested with a large sample of respondents working in a diversity of firms and industrial sectors. This new measure demonstrated improved psychometric properties as well as strong convergent-discriminant and consensual validity. Overall, results supported the view that generic cultural dimensions can be identified. The implications of these findings for culture research and measurement are discussed. Résumé Cette étude passe en revue une vingtaine de questionnaires de culture organisationnelle afin d’identifier les dimensions culturelles communes à ces instruments et examine les qualités psychométriques de ces échelles. Les recouvrements conceptuels entre ces instruments mettent en évidence quatre dimensions
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".