Bibliographic record
Abstract
QWL programs were introduced at five petrochemical plants in the chemical valley complex in Lambton County, Ontario: three at newly constructed or greenfield sites and two at redesigned, existing sites. A random-sample survey of job enrichment and job satisfaction was conducted among blue-collar workers at each of the QWL sites and at traditional, unchanged petrochemical sites. Comparisons between employees in QWL and traditional sites showed no differences on various aspects of either perceived job enrichment or job satisfaction. However, comparisons between employees at greenfield and redesign sites showed several significant differences. It was concluded that there is greater potential for successful introduction of QWL programs at greenfield sites than at redesign sites and that a job-enrichment ceiling for QWL programs may exist in technologically intensive, continuous process production systems such as at petrochemical plants. Some unanticipated effects of QWL programs were also noted in that employees at redesign sites had lower satisfaction with job security and employees at greenfield sites had lower satisfaction with compensation. Since the early 1950s, a growing number of organizations have experimented with sociotechnical systems (Trist, 1981) and QWL
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".