The Effect of Work Ethics and discipline on Performance that is intervening by The Commitments of State Civil Organizations (A Case Study of Educational Laboratory Staff at Padang State Polytechnic)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the effect of work ethic and discipline on performance that is intervening by the organizational commitment of Educational Laboratory Staff (ELS) at Padang State Polytechnic. This study was motivated by the undisciplined, the lack of responsibility and work ethic of ELS towards the regulation relating to functional positions as ELS at Padang State Polytechnic, so that the work time and performance of ELS at Padang State Polytechnic is wasted. Research method with a quantitative approach with path analysis method. Data collection techniques with questionnaires, observation and interviews. The respondents of this study were 40 of ELS at Padang State Polytechnic. The sampling method uses a total sampling method where in the entire population in this study is used as the research sample. Hypothesis testing is calculated by IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) program version 21.0. The results of this study found that work ethic has significant effect on organizational commitment, work discipline has significant effect on organizational commitment, organizational commitment has significant effect on performance, work ethic has significant effect on performance, work discipline does not have significant effect on performance, indirectly, work ethic through organizational commitment have a significant effect on performance and indirectly work discipline through organizational commitment has a significant effect on performance of ELS at Padang State Polytechnic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".