Özel Eğitim Öğretmenlerinin Okula Bağlılık Düzeylerinin İş Motivasyonlarıyla İlişkisinin İncelenmesi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, it was aimed to investigate the relationship of special education teachers' commitment levels to school with their work motivations. In order to determine the effect of special education teachers' perceptions of organizational commitment on job motivation in educational institutions, regression analysis was carried out in parallel with this. In the types of motivation, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation sources were examined by considering them together in the said research. According to the results obtained as a result of the analysis,; it has been understood that only emotional attachment is a significant predictor of intrinsic motivation from organizational commitment components. In addition, it has been determined that attendance commitment and emotional commitment to the institution are significant predictors of extrinsic motivation together. Emotional attachment, which stands out as an important concept here, expresses the individual's attachment as a feeling, identification with the organization he is in, preference to stay in the organization and desire to be a part of the organization. Key Words: Educational Institution, Special Education, Commitment, Work Motivation
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".