MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744749982 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v9n3p64

Factors Affecting Stress among Faculty Members of Public Universities in the Philippines: A Multiple Regression Analysis

2017· article· en· W2744749982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeryl Shawn T. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCommission on Higher Education
KeywordsStressorPsychologyCoping (psychology)Regression analysisJob satisfactionSocial psychologyJob stressClinical psychologyMedical educationMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on particular demographic and education-related factors that contribute to the stress levels of public university faculty members in the Philippines. Participants in this study were part-time or full-time faculty members of Philippine public universities and were teaching at least a class during the First Semester of Academic Year 2016-2017. Participants were tasked to answer a survey, online or paper format, consisting of 3 instruments and other questions. Responses from 100 participants were then analyzed with multiple regression as the main statistical analysis. Results showed part-time/full-time status, age, job satisfaction and negative religious coping as significant predictors of faculty stress. Other performed analyses also revealed significant negative correlations between job satisfaction and stressors related to reward and recognition and departmental influence. In addition, though faculty members preferred positive religious coping as a coping strategy over negative religious coping, a significant positive correlation was noted between the 2 types. Recommendations were made for future studies related to stress among public university faculty members in the Philippines.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207