MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500924122 · doi:10.5539/hes.v5n3p24

Academic Factors and Turnover Intention: Impact of Organization Factors

2015· article· en· W1500924122 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amran Awang, Ima Ilyani Ibrahim, Mohamad Niza Md Nor, Mohd Fazly Mohd Razali, Zakaria Mat Arof, Ahmad Redzuan Abdul Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaUniversiti Malaysia PahangUniversiti Utara Malaysia
KeywordsPsychologyOrganizational commitmentHappinessOrganisation climateSocial psychologyTurnover intentionTurnoverHigher educationOrganization developmentPublic relationsApplied psychologyManagementPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Institutional support and recognition led to less happier and committed academicians. Previous empirical findings justified that intentions to leave an organization has been due to issues in commitment and job performance. The study observes 130 academicians in five Malaysian public higher learning institutions in a cross-sectional data collection collected through an online survey portal of surveymonkey.com. The results showed impact of academic development and organizational climate induced stronger organizational commitment and consequently reduced turnover intention. On the other hand, academic development and academic tasks and organizational happiness promoted higher organizational commitment and subsequently enhance job performance. Finally, limitations of the study, implication to theory, practice and future studies are suggested.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207