MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920184741 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n12p59

The Influence of Motivation and Discipline Work against Employee Work Productivity Tona’an Markets

2015· article· en· W1920184741 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmployee Performance and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityWork (physics)Work productivityBusinessPopulationMarketingEconomicsSociologyEngineeringEconomic growthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine and examine whether there is influence of motivation, and discipline kerjai on employee productivity in office environments Bangkalan tona’an market? The method used in this research is quantitative research approach with linear regression analysis techniques. multiple. The population in this study were all employees of the office market tona’an Bangkalan of 20 people, while samples in this study were all employees of the market tona’an some 20 people. Results from this study is, the hypothesis that motivational effect on work productivity in office environments market Tona’an Bangkalan district rejected / not proven. While the hypothesis Discipline influential work on employee productivity in office environments tona’an market Bangkalan Received / confirmed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.276 · 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