Identification and Analysis of Labor Productivity Components Based on ACHIEVE Model (Case Study: Staff of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification and analysis of the components of labor productivity based on ACHIEVE model was performed among employees in different parts of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in 2014. This was a descriptive correlational study in which the population consisted of 270 working personnel in different administrative groups (contractual, fixed- term and regular) at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (872 people) that were selected among 872 people through stratified random sampling method based on Krejcie and Morgan sampling table. The survey tool included labor productivity questionnaire of ACHIEVE. Questionnaires were confirmed in terms of content and face validity, and their reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The data were analyzed by SPSS-18 software using descriptive and inferential statistics. The mean scores for labor productivity dimensions of the employees, including environment (environmental fit), evaluation (training and performance feedback), validity (valid and legal exercise of personnel), incentive (motivation or desire), help (organizational support), clarity (role perception or understanding), ability (knowledge and skills) variables and total labor productivity were 4.10±0.630, 3.99±0.568, 3.97±0.607, 3.76±0.701, 3.63±0.746, 3.59±0.777, 3.49±0.882 and 26.54±4.347, respectively. Also, the results indicated that the seven factors of environment, performance assessment, validity, motivation, organizational support, clarity, and ability were effective in increasing labor productivity. The analysis of the current status of university staff in the employees' viewpoint suggested that the two factors of environment and evaluation, which had the greatest impact on labor productivity in the viewpoint of the staff, were in a favorable condition and needed to be further taken into consideration by authorities.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".