MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159408298 · doi:10.1145/3462766.3462772

Job Satisfaction of IT Workers in East Asia

2021· article· en· W3159408298 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Yeo, Alexander Serenko, Prashant Palvia, Osam Sato, Hiroshi Sasaki, Jie Yu, Yue Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionJob attitudeChinaJob designFlexibility (engineering)Personnel psychologyBusinessJob performancePsychologyDemographic economicsMarketingSocial psychologyManagementPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to explore the drivers of job satisfaction of IT workers in the East Asian context, particularly in Taiwan, Japan, and China. Using data collected from IT workers, decision tree inductions were employed to identify the predictors of job satisfaction. Results indicate that the level of education has no effect on job satisfaction. Overall, higher uncertainty avoidance results in lower job satisfaction, and more experienced IT workers appear to be more satisfied. In Taiwan, longer serving IT workers, who are likely to hold more senior positions and spend more time on the job, are more satisfied with their jobs. Similarly, in Japan, older IT workers are more satisfied. In China, job satisfaction of IT workers differs across job roles and industries. It is recommended that management practices and policies in Taiwan focus on bridging gaps between longer serving and newer IT workers in terms of their ability to handle ambiguous work situations; whereas in Japan, these should focus on providing work flexibility and stress management programs to allow room for family support. In China, these should be tailored to specific job roles and industries in view of their different experiences with job satisfaction determinants.

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)0.001
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 score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.011
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information SystemsSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207