MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093903041 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.8.002

The impact of using online social media networks on employees’ productivity in higher educational institutions

2020· article· en· W3093903041 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled Salmen Aljaaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivitySocial mediaChristian ministryWork (physics)Public relationsBusinessMarketingPolitical scienceEconomic growthEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the online social media networks (OSMNs) on productivity at workplace among 88 administrative staff at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaiziz University for the academic year 2020-2021. This study finds that using online social media networks by PSAU’s employees at the workplace enhances their productivity. The majority of the employees (59%) perceive that using the OSMNs at workplace have a positive impact on their productivity. In addition, the majority of the employees (33%) regu-larly use WhatsApp as a useful online social media network at the workplace. The results also indicate that the majority of the employees (66%) use the OSMNs at workplace more than once a day. Further, the majority of the PSAU’s employees (39%) use the OSMNs at work-place less than half an hour per a day. Furthermore, 39% of the PSAU’s employees use the OSMNs at workplace to keep in touch with their families and friends, and 34% of the employees use the OSMNs to search for work-related information. The results of this study should be useful to policy makers in Saudi Arabia at the country, ministry of education, PSAU, and elsewhere in gaining a deeper understanding on how using the OSMNs at work-place can enhances the employees’ productivity.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207