MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115677096 · doi:10.26181/30485627

A profile of Australian occupational therapy academic workforce job satisfaction

2020· article· W7115677096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLa Trobe University · 2020
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceWorkloadQuarter (Canadian coin)Occupational therapyJob satisfactionInclusion (mineral)Economic shortageDescriptive statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There has been an increase in the number of Australian occupational therapy education programmes and student enrolment numbers in existing programmes, whereas there is a perceived current and predicted future workforce shortage of qualified university academics. The aim of the study was to map the current Australian occupational therapy academic workforce and investigate the group's job satisfaction. Methods: The research was a cross-sectional online survey of Australian occupational therapy academics employed part-time or full-time in fixed or ongoing positions. The survey included the Job Satisfaction Survey. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Spearman rho correlations, and linear and multi-linear regressions. Results: Responses were received from 120 participants who met inclusion criteria, with 89% of the sample being women, 83% employed in ongoing positions and 61% employed full-time. Over half had a PhD or professional doctorate and similarly, over half were employed in lecturer or level B positions. One quarter of respondents were in teaching-only positions and 58% were in combined teaching and research positions. Nearly half were over 46 years of age. Respondents reported that they were satisfied with supervision, the nature of the work, and co-workers; however, were dissatisfied with operating conditions and were ambivalent about pay, contingent rewards, opportunities for promotion, communication, and fringe benefits. Most participants were motivated by teaching students but reported unrealistic workload requirements as their greatest challenge. Conclusion: The Australian occupational therapy academic workforce is relatively stable with most in ongoing positions; however, there are fewer in senior positions. The majority of respondents were in lecturer or level B positions, with lowest levels of satisfaction, particularly those who had been at this level longer. Workload expectations and lack of opportunities for promotion contributed to marked job dissatisfaction. Workforce planning, including recruitment and retention strategies, is needed to address predicted increased demands.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLa Trobe UniversitySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207