MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885224803 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2018.7.002

Analysis of turnover intention power factors: A case study of retail company in Jakarta

2018· article· en· W2885224803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zulfa Fitri Ikatrinasari, Luhur Moekti Prayogo, Silvi Ariyanti

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessTurnover intentionPower (physics)TurnoverMarketingRetail industryBusiness administrationIndustrial organizationOperations managementManagementEconomicsOrganizational commitment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employee turnover rate in the head office of retail companies in East Jakarta has been relatively high, recently.The turnover rate results in a disruption of operations in the head office, in forms of delays in the provision of data reporting, which causes a disruption in flow of information.This research covers such aspects as colleagues' relationships, work environment, salary level, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.The primary objective of this paper is to identify different aspects of employee turnover intention.Partial Least Square Method (PLS) is applied to determine the important factors of employee turnover intention.The result shows that job satisfaction and organizational commitment maintained an adverse and significant effect on turnover intention while salary levels had an adverse but not significant effect on turnover intention.Coworkers and workplace relationships also had an adverse and significant effect but had no direct effect on turnover intention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207