Survey of the Relationship between Organizational Silence and Organizational Commitment of Junior Secondary and Senior Teachers of Azna City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The present study has been done in descriptive methodology of the correlation sort with the aim of investigating the relationship between organizational silence and commitment of the high school teachers in Junior secondary and senior schools in the city of Azna. The statistical community of this investigation includes all 312 teachers of the mentioned city from which the number of 175 persons has been chosen through Kukran sample formula and according to classified accidental sample proportionate with the capacity of the community. The tools for gathering data were three questionnaires. i.e., organizational silence (Vakula &amp; Buradas, 2005) with 23 questions and organizational commitment of Allen and Mey (1991) with 24 questions whose content and formal fluency was confirmed by several responders and a few statistical communities and their credit was provided as 0.90, 0.92, by Koronbach Alfa coefficient respectively. The analysis of the data has been done in two levels of descriptive and conceptual statistic through Pierson’s correlation coefficient. The findings of the analysis of the investigation questions showed that there is a negative meaningful relationship between the organizational silence and its dimensions with organizational commitment.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".