MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471730685 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n7p159

Rating Effective Factors on Motivating Employees for Job Persistence by Using Fuzzy AHP Method: A Case Study among the Employees of the Deqat Khodro Kousha (IPACO) Company

2016· article· en· W2471730685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Mehdi Khadem, Darush Rahmati, Ali Yavari, Seyed Ehsan Etemadifar, Alireza Eftekharian

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Analytic hierarchy processWork (physics)PsychologyField (mathematics)Human resource managementBusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this research is to prioritize effective factors on motivating employees to keep on working and determining the most important effective factors on the employees' motivation. In this paper, to grade effective factors on the employees' motivation for keeping on to work, the Fuzzy AHP method, which is one of the multi-standard decision-making methods was utilized. Field research and library research methods were used for collecting the needed information. Results indicated that among the effective factors on the employees' motivation for job persistence, the health factor is the most important and financial status is the second most important factor. The least importance is given to the significance of the work for that person. In this paper, the effective factors on the employees' motivation for job persistence were rated for the first time. Results of this research are very useful in devising strategies that are related to keeping employees for the human resources' executives. The results of this paper are not applicable to all organizations. Furthermore, in this research, only the factors with positive impacts on employees for job persistence were rated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207