A Study On Occupational Stress Experienced By Lecturers Of The Higher Learning Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study on occupational stress experienced by lecturers of the higher learning institutions in the state of Perlis. It has five main objectives. The first objective is to determine the average level of job stress experienceld by lecturers of various higher learning institutions in the state of Perlis. The second objective is to determine the most common factors (stressors) that caused job stress of the lecturers. While the third objective is to determine whether there is a significant difference in term of the occupational stress level experienced by the type A behavior pattern and type B behavior pattern lecturers. Next, its’ fourth objective is to determine the association between personality type (type A or type B) among the lecturers and their occupational stress level. Last but not least, the fifth objective is to determine whether there are significant differences in term of the occupational stress levels experienced by different subgroups of the demographic factor, such as, age, gender, work experiences and marital status. The result of the findings of this study showed that; (a) generally, the lecturers of the higher learning in the state of Perlis were experiencing low level of occupational stress. (b) the most common factors that caused occupational stress among the lecturers were job overload, job nature and time management. While in term of the association, reward system (r = 0.663, p= 0.000) and relationship (r = 0.649, p = 0.000) seemed to show stronger correlations with occupational stress level. (c) there was a significant difference between the mean level of the TABP and TBBP resplondents of this study ( p value < 0.05). There was also a significant positive correlation between TABP respondents and the level of occupational stress (r = 0.197, p = 0.043). (d) it was also clear that there were no significant differences in the occupational stress levels among the different subgroups of the demographic variables such as sex, age groups, work experiences and marital status (p value > 0.05). Based on the research findings, it is recommended that organizations concerned should help the lecturers to achieve mental, emotion and physical preparedness to cope with 0s effectively.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".