MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390818257 · doi:10.47670/wuwijar202481kg

Labor Shortages in the Hospitality Industry: The Effects of Work-life Balance, Employee Compensation, Government-Issued Unemployment Benefits and Job Insecurity on Employees' Turnover Intentions

2024· article· en· W4390818257 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Grigoryan

Bibliographic record

VenueWestcliff International Journal of Applied Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitality industryUnemploymentTurnoverGovernment (linguistics)HospitalityBusinessJob securityWork–life balanceCompensation (psychology)Balance (ability)Work (physics)Labour economicsMarketingEconomicsPsychologyEconomic growthTourismFinanceManagementPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this quantitative research was to identify the factors causing labor shortages in the hospitality industry in the post-pandemic era. Specifically, it examined the effects of work-life balance, employee compensation, government-issued unemployment benefits, and job insecurity on employees' turnover intentions. The research methodology employed in this study was a quantitative survey, with a sample size of 385 participants from the hotel, restaurant, bar industry, and food service sector. The findings indicated work-life balance, employee compensation, and job insecurity had a significant impact on employees' turnover intentions, as the null hypotheses for these factors were rejected. However, the government-issued unemployment benefits (EDD) did not show any significant impact, indicating further research is needed to gain deeper insights into the potential influence of these benefits. These findings contribute to the understanding of the challenges faced by the hospitality industry in retaining employees and highlight the importance of addressing work-life balance, compensation, and job insecurity to mitigate employee turnover.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.333
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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestcliff International Journal of Applied ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207