MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061101037 · doi:10.5539/ass.v7n1p3

Vulnerability to Brain-Drain among Academics in Institutions of Higher Learning in Ethiopia

2010· article· en· W2061101037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tesfaye Semela

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain drainVulnerability (computing)SalaryPsychologyJob satisfactionWork (physics)Sample (material)CitizenshipSocial psychologyPolitical scienceDemographic economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the extent, causes, and correlates of vulnerability to brain-drain among Ethiopian academics in higher education institutions (HEIs). The sample constituted a total of 103 faculty members (Females 9.3% and Males 90.7%) drawn from three colleges and four faculties affiliated to the Debub University. Data were collected through self-reported measures assessing vulnerability to brain-drain (external brain-drain conceptualized as intention to remain in a western country given that they would have opportunities for further study or research; and internal brain drain defined as a brain circulation within the country), affective job characteristics (job satisfaction and organizational commitment), and work environment factors. The results show that affective job characteristics and work environment variables significantly predicted vulnerability to internal brain-drain. While external brain drain is associated with vulnerability to internal brain drain and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). A closer investigation into the prominence of the pull and push factors further disclosed that working condition and the salary are the outstanding ones. Implications of the findings for policy making are also discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207