MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1758043088 · doi:10.1111/jasp.12209

Passion at work and workers' evaluations of job demands and resources: a longitudinal study

2014· article· en· W1758043088 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à MontréalSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPassionPsychologyWork (physics)Social psychologyControl (management)Applied psychologyManagementMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract V allerand et al. developed a dualistic model of passion where two types of passion are proposed: harmonious and obsessive passion. They generally predict adaptive and less adaptive outcomes, respectively. In this study, we examine whether the type of passion that employees hold toward work influences their evaluations of job demands and resources. We hypothesized that a harmonious passion for work would lead to positive evaluations of job control and support in the workplace as well as to low levels of work overload. In contrast, we hypothesized that an obsessive passion for work would lead to evaluations of work overload and to low levels of job control and support. The results of a longitudinal study supported our hypothesis.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.340 · 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