An analysis of the relationship between quality of work life and motivation for correctional services officers in the Montreal area /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between quality of work life and motivation of French-speaking Correctional Services Officers (CSOs) working in the Montreal area. Three hundred and forty-seven male and female CSOs (ranging from 19 to 58 years of age) working in four different provincial correctional establishments were assessed. Each participant completed an introductory questionnaire, Pelsma, Richard, Harrington, and Burry's (1989) French-translated 8-item Quality of Work Life Survey (QWL-F) and Blais, Briere, Lachance, Riddle, and Vallerand's (1993) French-translated 8-item Work Motivation Inventory (BWMI-F). Assessment of quality of work life and motivation for CSOs were analyzed with an emphasis on differences in gender and work status. Using different correlational analyses as well as multiple regressions, the findings from this inquiry indicated that motivation and quality of work life were positively correlated. Male and female CSOs reported to be more intrinsically motivated as they started their careers and became amotivated and in need of greater extrinsic rewards as they became older with greater work experience. Hence, younger and less experienced male and female CSOs would eventually become influenced by their older workmates. Female CSOs appeared to be more stressed and reported greater levels of amotivation than their male colleagues. However, female CSOs reported a greater ease in communicating their concerns and in consulting with internal and external resources. Research implications as well as study limitations are also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".