MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28257998 · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2017.02.003

Personal characteristics, occupational stress and turnover intentions among school teachers in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

2007· article· en· W28257998 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shahrul Nizam Salahudin, Muhammad Madi Bin Abdullah, Sabihah Hitam, Durrishah Idrus

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Drug Delivery Reviews · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCarleton University
KeywordsOccupational stressPsychologyTurnover intentionTurnoverSchool teachersStress (linguistics)Social psychologyPedagogyManagementJob satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paclitaxel (PTX) is one of the three most widely used chemotherapeutic agents, together with doxorubicin and cisplatin, and is first or second line treatment for several types of cancers. In 2000, Taxol, the conventional formulation of PTX, became the best-selling cancer drug of all time with annual sales of 1.6 billion. In 2005, the introduction of the albumin-based formulation of PTX, known as Abraxane, ended Taxol's monopoly of the PTX market. Abraxane's ability to push the Taxol innovator and generic formulations aside attracted fierce competition amongst competitors worldwide to develop their own unique, new and improved formulation of PTX. At this time there are at least 18 companies focused on pre-clinical and/or clinical development of nano-formulations of PTX. These pharmaceutical companies are investing substantial capital to capture a share of the lucrative global PTX market. It is hoped that any formulation that dominates the market will result in tangible benefits to patients in terms of both survival and quality of life. Given all of this activity, here we address the question: Who is going to win the battle of "nano" paclitaxel?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Drug Delivery ReviewsSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207