MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2211905153 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2015.11.006

Improving employee productivity through work engagement: Evidence from higher education sector

2015· article· en· W2211905153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jalal Rajeh Hanaysha

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmployee Performance and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityEmployee engagementStructural equation modelingWork (physics)Work engagementSample (material)BusinessSurvey data collectionMarketingPublic relationsKnowledge managementPsychologyEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employee productivity is one of the important management topics that received significant research attentions from several scholars and considered as a primary mechanism to enhance organizational success. Knowing what are the key factors that influence productivity is vital to ensure long term performance. This study examines the effect of work engagement on employee productivity in higher education sector. To accomplish this purpose, the primary data using survey instrument were collected from a sample of 242 employees at public universities in northern Malaysia using an online survey method. The collected data was analyzed using SPSS and Structural equation modelling on AMOS. The results indicated that work engagement had significant positive effect on employee productivity. Moreover, this study provides an evidence that all of the dimensions of work engagement namely vigor, dedication, and absorption have significant positive effects on employee productivity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations127
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicEmployee Performance and ManagementFrench-language works237,207