MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255348389 · doi:10.17722/ijme.v12i1.1039

The Moderating Effect of Time Management on the Relationship between Quality of Work Life and Personal Effectiveness of Junior High School Teachers in Davao Region

2018· article· en· W4255348389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
RUELAN TEÑAJORA IMPAS

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management Excellence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Sociology, Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal lifeModerationWork (physics)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)Time managementPersonal developmentQuality of life (healthcare)Medical educationApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedicineManagementEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ultimate aim of this study was to determine the moderating effect of time management on the relationship between quality of work life and personal effectiveness of junior high school teachers in Davao Region. Adapted survey questionnaires were given to a sample of 400 teachers from public junior high schools in the region. Findings revealed that the levels of quality of work life, personal effectiveness and time management are high. Further, findings revealed that quality of work life is significantly related to personal effectiveness. Time management also showed a positive significant relationship to personal effectiveness. To determine the moderating effect of time management, a logistic hierarchical regression was employed in this study. Results revealed that time management has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between quality of work life and personal effectiveness. Teachers who have higher and lower levels of time management demonstrated the same degree of personal effectiveness as influenced by quality of work life. Keywords- education; moderating effect; personal effectiveness; Philippines; quality of work life; time management

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Management ExcellenceSame topicEducation, Sociology, Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207