MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research on the Influencing Factors of Job Stress of University Teachers ---- Take Changchun University of Science and Technology as an Example

2012· article· en· W1905280797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bo Meng, Liying Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologySociologyPedagogyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper selects 159 teachers of Changchun University of Science and Technology (CUST) by stratifi ed sampling method to perform questionnaire survey, determines five factors that influence the job stress of university teachers by principal component analysis. It also analyzes the influence of academic title, gender, age, education background, length of service and discipline difference on the job stress so as to guide universities to deal with teachers’ job stress. Key words : University teacher; Job stress; Job performance Resume Le present texte selectionne 159 professeurs de l’Universitede de la science et de la technologie de Changchun (CUST) par la methode d’echantillonnage stratifie pour effectuer enquete par questionnaire, determine cinq facteurs qui infl uencent le stress au travail des professeurs d’universite par l’analyse en composantes principales. Il analyse egalement l’influence du titre de formation, le sexe, l’âge, l’education de base, la duree de service et de la difference de discipline sur le stress au travail afi n de guider les universites a faire face au stress d’emploi des enseignants. Mots cles : Professeur d’universite; Le stress au travail; Le rendement au travail

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)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicTechnostress in Professional SettingsFrench-language works237,207