MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224956311 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v11n7p47

Facility Maintenance Management and Its Effects on Employee Performance: A Positivist Approach

2022· article· en· W4224956311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sipumelele Ntshebe, Miston Mapuranga, Thobekani Lose, Yusuf Lukman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacility managementInstitutionPreventive maintenanceUpgradeBusinessOperations managementEngineering managementKnowledge managementMarketingProcess managementEngineeringComputer scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate the role facility maintenance management plays on employee performance at a institution of higher learning in the Eastern Cape of South Africa.. This study employed a quantitative research approach, and the data were gathered from 150 employees who were chosen through a random sampling method. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Scientist (SPSS) Version 24.0. The analysis was of frequencies and standard deviations. The study findings revealed that the current facilities at the institution need an upgrade to a level that is conducive, suitable, and adequate for employees to perform their duties satisfactorily to reach the objectives of the institution. An efficient method for preparing, scheduling, and coordinating facility maintenance tasks needs to be applied to ensure effective maintenance service is performed effectively. This empirical study provided fruitful implications for academicians by making a significant contribution to the facility maintenance literature by systematically exploring the effect of facility maintenance management on the employee performance at a higher learning institution within the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. This study, consequently, stands to greatly add new knowledge to the existing literature related to maintenance performance measurement in Africa, a research setting that has been neglected by academic researchers of late.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207