MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199776036 · doi:10.5430/bmr.v10n3p1

Effects of Fringe Benefits on Employee Loyalty: A Study on University Teachers in Khulna City of Bangladesh

2021· article· en· W3199776036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prosenjit Tarafdar, Kajol Karmoker, Sraboni Akter

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Management Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyContext (archaeology)MarketingEmployee benefitsSample (material)BusinessTest (biology)PaymentPsychologyWelfareVariance (accounting)Regression analysisDemographic economicsEconomicsStatisticsGeographyFinanceAccountingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of fringe benefits on employee loyalty in the context of university teachers. The study sample consisted of 100 university teachers who were randomly selected from both private and public universities situated in Khulna city of Bangladesh. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire survey. To test the study hypotheses, data were analyzed employing correlation and multiple regression analysis tools. Results of correlation analysis reveal that fringe benefits (insurance & retirement benefits, payments for time not worked, education & development opportunities, flexible working hours, and employee welfare benefits) are positively related to employee loyalty. Regression statistics shows that 25.6% variance of employee loyalty can be explained by the fringe benefits. The study findings also indicate that flexible working hours (β = 0.296, Sig. = 0.001) has the most significant contribution in explaining employee loyalty among the university faculty members employed in Khulna city of Bangladesh.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Management ResearchSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207