The effect of work environment, stress, and job satisfaction on employee turnover intention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the factors that influence Bank Mandiri employees' turnover intention including work environment, stress, and job satisfaction. This research is expected to be able to find a solution to the problem of increasing turnover intention which could lead to serious problems. The study uses a quantitative method with the Path Analysis model and the resulted model analyzes both direct effect and indirect effects of independent variables on dependent variable. The sample size includes 100 employees of Mandiri Bank who were selected from a population of 430 employees based on purposive random sampling technique. The findings of this research indicate that, work environment had a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction. Second, stress had a negative and significant effect on job satisfaction. Third, work environment had a negative and significant effect on turnover intention. Fourth, stress had a positive and significant effect on turnover intention. Fifth, job satisfaction had a negative and significant effect on turnover intention. Based on these results, work environment, stress, and job satisfaction can be policy tools to reduce turnover intention, which can lead to a decrease in real turnover at Mandiri Bank.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".