MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186338678 · doi:10.37296/esci.v1i1.6

JOB LIFE QUALITY AND MOTIVATION FACTORS IN HEALTHCARE

2020· article· en· W3186338678 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScience Humanity Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Practices and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionFeelingPsychologyQuality (philosophy)Health careGovernment (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)Descriptive researchJob attitudeApplied psychologySocial psychologyJob performanceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To have a high motivation and better life standards, work life is an important factor It is expected that not just monetary benefits increase the motivation but physiological factor like approval and feeling of helping others. The purpose of this study is determining preferences of job life quality and motivation of workers in healthcare. To determine the Job Quality of Life and motivating factor affecting satisfaction, 109 questionnaires about 10% of staffs (900 staffs) were applied to the Bingöl city main government hospital at third quarter of 2016. Descriptive statistics are used to analyze questionnaires. Materialistic prizes such as permission and wage increase are seen the most effective rewarding methods. Moreover, they do not want to have a good communication with management and they are not eager to take more responsibilities and authority.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.088 · 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