Work Motivation of Teachers: Relationship with Organizational Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the modern world of competitive higher education the role of motivated teachers is undeniable. This study aims to find the importance of organizational commitment in motivating the teachers. Data was collected from 450 degree college teachers of Bangalore city. Analysis of data and the discussion is included. The results showed a positive relationship between work motivation and organizational commitment of degree college teachers. More committed teachers were found to be more motivated. Implications of the findings and limitations of the study are given. Key words: Work motivation; Organizational commitmentResume: Dans le monde moderne de l'enseignement superieur competitif le role des enseignants motives est indeniable. Cette etude vise a trouver l'importance de l'engagement organisationnel dans la motivation des enseignants. Les donnees ont ete recueillies a partir de 450 enseignants universitaires de la ville de Bangalore. L'analyse des donnees et la discussion sont inclus. Les resultats ont montre une relation positive entre la motivation au travail et l'engagement organisationnel des enseignants universitaires. Les enseignants qui engagent le plus ont ete trouves a etre plus motives. Implications des conclusions et des limites de l'etude sont donnes. Mots cles: Motivation au travail; Engagement organisationnel
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".