Qualidade de Vida no Trabalho: Um Modelo Sistêmico de Análise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O principal objetivo deste artigo é testar a aplicabilidade de um modelo de Qualidade de Vida no Trabalho (QVT). Especificamente, buscou-se descrever o modelo de QVT adotado, analisar os indicadores e fatores de QVT na perspectiva dos professores universitários de instituições públicas, e verificar a adequabilidade do referido modelo para avaliar QVT em instituições do setor público. Aplicou-se um questionário online em dois momentos distintos, sendo que a amostra foi constituída inicialmente por 354 professores de Minas Gerais e 317 professores do Quebec. No segundo momento, respectivamente, 274 e 252 professores participaram da pesquisa. Os dados foram coletados entre janeiro e maio de 2013. A análise de correlação mostrou que, tanto os indicadores quanto os fatores que foram analisados apresentaram resultados consistentes com os do modelo de referência. Os resultados mostram que os construtos complementares relacionados ao sentido do trabalho, também foram consistentes com as pesquisas anteriores que subsidiaram a construção do modelo sistêmico de análise da QVT.
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 | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".