Employees Perception of Training and Its Relationship with Organizational Commitment among the Employees Working at Saudi Industrial Development Fund
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine employees perception of training provided by Saudi Industrial Development Fund (SIDF) and its relationship with organizational commitment. To achieve this aim, the study utilized a questionnaire consists of two validated, well established, international instruments: the first one is the perceived availability of training developed by Newman et al., (2011) and includes 22-item inventory that measures an individual on the training, the second instrument called commitment scale developed by Allen and Meyer, (1996) and includes 18-item inventory to identify a person’s commitment. This questionnaire has been distributed to a simple random sample consist of (200) employees of Saudi Industrial Development Fund. A total of (175) complete questionnaires has been received back at a response rate of (87%). After analyzing data and testing hypotheses, the main results of this study are:• There is a positive relationship between five training-related variables and affective commitment.• There is a positive relationship between two training-related variables (the perceived availability of training and perceived supervisor support for training) and two commitment-related variables (continuance and normative commitment).• There is a negative relationship between perceived co-worker support for training and two commitment-related variables (continuance and normative commitment).• There is no relationship between two training-related variables (the perceived benefits of training and motivation to learn) and two commitment-related variables (continuance and normative commitment).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".