Contribution of work ability and work motivation with performance and its impact on work productivity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the important tasks is to improve work ability, work motivation, performance and work productivity in business. The research objective is to examine the contribution and influence of work ability, work motivation, performance, and their impacts on work productivity. The research was conducted among all 105 cooperatives in the city of Pasuruan, East Java. The research method used survey methods and data analysis techniques using path analysis. The results showed that work ability and work motivation had significant effects on the performance (=0.226, Sig. = 0.000). Work ability, work motivation, and performance had significant effects on work productivity (=0.481, = 0.000). The ability to work had a significant direct effect on the performance (=0.393, Sig. = 0.000). Work ability had a significant direct effect on productivity (=0.578, Sig. = 0.043). Performance had a significant direct effect on work productivity (=0.542, = 0.000). Furthermore, work ability had a significant effect on work productivity through performance (t-value=2.083>1.983). Finally, work motivation had a significant indirect effect on productivity through performance (t-value=2.921>1.983).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it