MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147822114 · doi:10.5539/ass.v9n10p88

Working Morale on Hospitality Employees in Thailand

2013· article· en· W2147822114 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suchanan Suksaranruedee, Usaporn Sucaromana

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Behavior and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryHospitalityJob satisfactionSupervisorPsychologyWorking environmentJob securityWork (physics)Applied psychologySocial psychologyManagementPolitical scienceTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the level of working morale among hospitality employees in the Pattaya district, Thailand, and to compare the differences between the working morale of the employees based on gender and years of work experience. The instrument used for collecting data was a questionnaire. This instrument comprised of 40 items that were grouped into eight aspects: (a) career advancement, (b) satisfaction with job position, (c) satisfaction with job responsibility, (d) satisfaction with supervision and supervisor, (e) relationship between peers and superiors, (f) satisfaction with salary and fringe benefits, (g) working environment, and (h) security in the workplace. The result of the study revealed that the overall working morale of the employees in the Pattaya district was at a high level. Regarding the eight aspects, the levels of the working morale for each aspect were also high. In additions, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the working morale of the hospitality employees based on gender and years of work experience.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicHuman Behavior and MotivationFrench-language works237,207