MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167820329 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v3n2p133

An Appraisal of Burnout among the University Lecturers in Ekiti State, Nigeria

2013· article· en· W2167820329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. O. Olorunsola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomRecreationPsychologyBurnoutSignificant differenceTest (biology)Medical educationApplied psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This survey investigated, identified and described the status of burnout among the university lecturers in EkitiState University. A sample consisted of 80 respondents made up of 52 male and 28 female lecturers. Oneresearch question was raised and one hypothesis was generated and tested at 0.05 level of significance usingt-test, mean and standard deviation. The result of the analysis showed that there was a high level of burnoutamong the lecturers. The study further revealed that there was a significant difference between burnout acrossthe ages of lecturers. Based on the findings, it was recommended that the university management should createan atmosphere that promotes health through recreation in form suitable to the age range of the lecturers, studyleave and a change of environment. Also, the university management should create job enrichment foremployees that perform same work. Also recommended was that all the lecturers should be allowed to go oncompulsory leave yearly to refresh themselves and get out of boredom.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207