MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769303245 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n12p116

Optimize the Role of Commitment of Employees in Improving Accountability Office Report on Local Government Budget

2017· article· en· W2769303245 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siti Istikhoroh, Yuni Sukamdani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus of controlAccountabilityOrganizational commitmentBusinessControl (management)TeamworkGovernment (linguistics)VariablesRegression analysisLocal governmentAffect (linguistics)Public relationsPsychologyManagementPublic administrationSocial psychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the factors that affect employee commitment so that its role in improving the accountability of budget reporting can be optimized. The study was conducted on 20 units of East Java Provincial Government Office in 2016. Data were collected by giving questionnaires to 268 respondents and analyzed using multiple linear regression method. Researchers establish organizational learning and locus of control as a variable that affects the commitment of employees. The results of the analysis prove that employee commitment can be optimized through organizational learning process with indicators in the form of thinking systems, mentality, personal skills, teamwork, and understanding of the vision of the organization. Meanwhile, locus of control measured by internal control and external control proved unable to increase employee 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceFrench-language works237,207