Passion for Work and Emotional Exhaustion: The Mediating Role of Rumination and Recovery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present research is to present a model pertaining to the mediating roles of rumination and recovery experiences in the relationship between a harmonious and an obsessive passion (Vallerand et al., 2003) for work and workers' emotional exhaustion. Two populations were measured in the present research: namely elite coaches and nurses. Study 1's model posits that obsessive passion positively predicts rumination about one's work when being physically away from work, while harmonious passion negatively predicts ruminative thoughts. In turn, rumination is expected to positively contribute to emotional exhaustion. The results of Study 1 were replicated in Study 2. In addition, in the model of Study 2, obsessive passion was expected to undermine recovery experiences, while harmonious passion was expected to predict recovery experiences. In turn, recovery experiences were expected to protect workers from emotional exhaustion. Results of both studies provided support for the proposed model. The present findings demonstrate that passion for work may lead to some adaptive and maladaptive psychological processes depending on the type of passion that is prevalent.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it