Diagnosis of destructive relationships between employees in Lithuanian enterprises: factors of internal environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the research problem raised by the question: what is the expression of destructive relations between employees in Lithuanian budgetary institutions and how to ensure favourable internal environment factors in order to reduce destructive employee relations? Research aim: identify the factors of the internal environment of destructive employee relations in Lithuanian budgetary institutions. 388 employees of Lithuanian budgetary institutions participated in the survey. The study found that nearly one-fifth of the study participants when communicating with colleagues and / or their superiors were slandered, loudly reviled; the form of isolation most often mentioned by respondents is that employees feel as if they are seen as an “empty space”, saying they no longer have someone to talk to at work; the tenth of the respondents to the survey are exposed to untrue gossip about them; one-tenth of the survey participants say they know that they are badly received “out of sight” and say they have doubts about the decisions they are making; one-fifth of employees stress that they often have to do absolutely pointless work; one-sixth notes that the tasks assigned exceed their physical capabilities; more than a third of respondents feel too tired at the end of the working day; a quarter of employees constantly feel stress and tension at work, as well as feel tired in the morning without even going to work; one-fifth of employees say they cannot relax after working hours, no longer have the strength to do their job well, can no longer concentrate on work as before, no longer have the desire to achieve the best results, and believe that this marathon of fatigue, stress and tension will never end. Employees of Lithuanian budgetary institutions, in the case of this sample, confirmed that they had been materially harmed intentionally at work.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".