MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Motivational Model of Work Turnover

2002· article· en· W2131689941 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFeelingCompetence (human resources)Structural equation modelingSocial psychologyTurnoverWork motivationEmotional exhaustionJob satisfactionTurnover intentionWork (physics)Affect (linguistics)BurnoutClinical psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article was to propose and test a motivational model of work turnover. The model posits that feelings of relatedness toward work colleagues and feelings of competence jointly and positively affect self‐determined work motivation, which in turn facilitates work satisfaction but prevents emotional exhaustion. Moreover, work satisfaction and emotional exhaustion respectively lead to negative and positive effects on turnover intentions. Finally, over time, turnover intentions translate into turnover behavior. A total of 490 alumni from a school of administration completed a questionnaire assessing the various components of the motivational model. Results from structural equation modeling analyses (with EQS; Bentler, 1992) supported the motivational model. Results are discussed in light of the relevant literature, and future research directions are proposed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · 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