The Relationship between Perceived Supervisor Support, Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Commitment and Employee Turnover Intention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the influence of perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment towards employees’ turnover intention. It has been discovered through previous literature that perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment are associated with employees’ turnover intention. This study collected data from 260 respondents selected from eight three-star hotels in Kota Kinabalu area. Each of the independent variables - perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment were regressed towards employees’ turnover intention (dependent variable). The findings show that there is a significant relationship between perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment towards employees’ turnover intention. This study suggests that more attention shall be given from the hotel management towards the employees to reduce the turnover intention. Apart from that, the study was able to gather some useful information for the hoteliers and managers pertaining to the respondents’ profile and what exactly the employees expect from the organization.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it