Exploring Antecedents to Work Engagement and Psychological Well-Being within a Canadian Provincial Ministry
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
A gap exists in organizational development strategies on why some individuals remain disengaged with their work. This study addressed whether a combination of specific contextual factors could support individuals, teams, and leaders to demonstrate the attitudes and behaviors consistent with work engagement. The theoretical frameworks of social constructivism, the conceptual framework of symbolic interactionism, and a hermeneutic inquiry approach were used to address how individual psychological traits/abilities of employees support work engagement. Nineteen employees of a Canadian provincial government ministry completed an engagement survey, MSCEIT, MBTI, and SDI assessments. They also participated in focus groups. Survey results showed high engagement scores. Focus group themes, derived from the Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method centered on perceptions of personal choice, passive resignation, and trust. Spearman's correlation results indicated a moderate, nonsignificant association between the MSCEIT, MBTI, SDI scores, and work engagement. Study results suggested 5 factors necessary for individuals to sustain engagement: the ability to balance a focus on others and impressions with a focus on ideas and concrete data, the ability to perceive and manage emotions, motivational values consistent with a concern for others, and leader and organizational support. Results from this study are expected to increase possible social change efforts focused on developing highly engaged teams that demonstrate a positive, fulfilling work-related state characterized by high energy levels, mental resilience, dedication, and involvement in 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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