MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402111225 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n6p45

The Relationship between Happiness, Subjective Well-Being, Creativity and Job Performance of Primary School Teachers in Ramhormoz City

2016· article· en· W2402111225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zohreh Jalali, Alireza Heidari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessCreativityPsychologyStratified samplingRegression analysisSocial psychologyPearson product-moment correlation coefficientScale (ratio)Well-beingSubjective well-beingJob satisfactionCluster samplingApplied psychologyStatisticsSociologyDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aimed to investigate the relationship between happiness, subjective well-being, creativity and job performance of primary school teachers in Ramhormoz City. Hence, a sample of 330 individuals was selected through random stratified sampling. The research tools included Oxford Happiness Inventory, Subjective Well-being Scale by Keyes and Magyarmv, Creativity Inventory by Randsip and Patterson Job Performance Inventory. The research employed a correlational method and the data were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis. Results indicated that, there is significant relationship between happiness, subjective well-being, creativity and job performance of primary school teachers in Ramhormoz City. The results of regression analysis indicated that, happiness and subjective well-being are the strongest predictors of job performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations59
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207