MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061849002

Relaci??n entre el estilo de liderazgo y el desempe??o laboral de los colaboradores de CINEPLANET - centro trujillo - 1 trimestre 2017

2017· dissertation· en· W7061849002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuerenati · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationLeadership styleSample (material)Work (physics)Statistical analysisTest (biology)Style (visual arts)Research design
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research aims to establish the relationship between the Leadership Style and the
\nWork Performance of the collaborators of the company Cineplanet Centro Trujillo of the
\ndistrict of Trujillo during the first quarter of 2017.
\nThe statement of the problem was: What is the relationship between the Leadership Style
\nand the Work Performance of the collaborators of the company "Cineplanet Centro" of the
\ndistrict of Trujillo in the first quarter of 2017; And the hypothesis: The relationship between
\nthe style of leadership and the work performance of employees in the company Cineplanet
\nCenter Trujillo of the district of Trujillo in the first quarter of 2017 is direct. 
\nThe study population consisted of 21 employees from the area of Piso; Taking all employees
\nas a sample because it is a small population. 
\nThe applied research design was descriptive correlational. For data collection, the survey
\nwas applied as a technique, using the questionnaire as an instrument. 
\nThe most relevant results were: The collaborators consider that the style of transactional
\nleadership is predominant, while the work performance of the collaborators is regular, results
\nthat are corroborated with the statistical test Chi Cuadrado, whose value of coefficient of
\npositive relation is 16 % Indicating that there is a direct relationship.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuerenatiSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207