A Comparative Analysis on the Causes of Occupational Stress among Men and Women Employees and its Effect on Performance at the workplace of Information Technology Sector, Hyderabad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research study presents the outcome of a comparative analysis on causes of occupational stress among the Men and Women employees and its effect on the employee performance at the workplace of Information Technology Sector (ITS), Hyderabad. A survey of 200 employees consisting 110 Men and 90 Women working in the IT sector was carried out to assess the six independent stress causing factors Job related, Organizational Related, Career, Physiological, Behavioral and Individual factors and its effect on employees’ Performance a dependent factor. The descriptive analysis, correlation techniques and parametric statistics like t-test, F-test and multiple regression analysis carried out to arrive at the conclusions. To measure the reliability of the scale used for this study, and internal consistencies of the survey questionnaire, the reliability static Cronbach’s alpha (C-alpha) and Spearman-Brown split-half reliability statistics were estimated. The overall C-alpha is 0.89 whereas the Spearman-Brown split half statistic is 0.83. The C-alpha values ranged from 0.62 to 0.76 for Men and 0.60 to 0.74 for Women, for all the 6 independent and one dependent factor. The results of the study indicate that the medium level occupational stress exists at the workplace in general, effecting the performance moderately. Health-wise, some employees developed chronic neck and back pain, an effect of long sitting hours at work. The study confirms that Women will have more stress than Men, however the factors causing the stress among the Men and Women are not similar.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".