Workaholism among Australian female managers and professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine potential consequences of workaholism among 98 women business graduates in early careers. It replicates earlier work based primarily on men. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from women business graduates of a single Australian university using anonymously completed questionnaires. Three workaholism components identified by Spence and Robbins were included: work involvement, feeling driven to work due to inner pressures and work enjoyment. Consequences included several validating job behaviors such as perfectionism and non‐delegation, work and extra‐work satisfactions and indicators of psychological well‐being. Findings Workaholism components generally had significant relationships with the validating job behaviors, work outcomes and indicators of psychological well‐being but not with extra‐work satisfactions. These findings provided a partial replications of previous conclusions based on primarily male samples. Research limitations/implications These include the small sample size, limits to generalizability of conclusions based on one Australian university, and data collection at only one point in time. Originality/value Previous workaholism research was based on North American men. This study extends this work to women in other countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".