MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W571184902 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2015.6.001

An empirical investigation on factors influencing on work stress: Evidence from banking industry

2015· article· en· W571184902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alireza Davoudzadeh Moghaddam, Yasaman Mashhadi Farahani

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBanking industryBusinessWork (physics)Work stressStress (linguistics)Empirical researchEmpirical evidenceIndustrial organizationOperations managementMarketingAccountingEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An individual with a career faced with various career challenges may experience work-related stress.Work related stress is a factor that threatens employees' health.The most common negative consequences of stress are particularly the deterioration of performance and efficiency, decrease in productivity and quality of customer's services, which results in health problems.Work-related stress is a global issue, and banks are no exception.This paper presents a survey to investigate the influencing factors on work stress in banking industry.The study designs a questionnaire and distributes it among 200 randomly selected bank department managers in city of Tehran, Iran.Using principle component analysis, the study has detected five factors including organizational characteristics, external environment, work content, personal characteristics and top 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207