MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W17846862 · doi:10.1007/s10534-007-9115-6

Banishing Burnout: Six Strategies for Improving Your Relationship with Work

2005· book· en· W17846862 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Leiter, Christina Maslach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadBurnoutWork (physics)Action (physics)Action planControl (management)Plan (archaeology)PsychologyIndex (typography)Computer scienceApplied psychologyManagement scienceOperations researchMathematicsEngineeringManagementArtificial intelligenceClinical psychologyWorld Wide WebEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acknowledgments 1. Your Job and You 2. What Is My Relationship with Work? 3. Making a Plan of Action 4. Solving Workload Problems 5. Solving Control Problems 6. Solving Reward Problems 7. Solving Community Problems 8. Solving Fairness Problems 9. Solving Values Problems 10. Changing Your Relationship Checking Up Web Site Information About the Authors Index

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations183
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207