The Influence of Motivation, Performance Appraisal, and Work Environment on Employee Performance at the Kecamatan Semarang Barat Office
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the effect of work motivation and work environment on employee performance at the West Semarang District Office. The research method used is a quantitative approach with regression analysis. The population in this study is all employees in the West Semarang District Office, which amounts to 170 people. The sampling technique uses a saturated sample method, where all members of the population are used as research samples. The results showed that Work motivation has a negative and significant effect on employee performance. Any increase in work motivation actually has the potential to reduce employee performance. Performance appraisal has a positive and significant impact on employee performance. When the value of performance appraisal increases, employee performance also tends to increase, although not too strongly. The work environment has a negative but not significant effect on employee performance. There is not enough statistical evidence to suggest the work environment affects performance. Work motivation, performance appraisal, and work environment simultaneously have a significant effect on employee performance. In conclusion, to improve employee performance, organizations need to pay attention to employee motivation factors and an effective performance appraisal system. Although the work environment is partially not proven to be influential, simultaneously with other factors, it still has an impact on employee performance at the West Semarang District Office.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".