Perceived organizational support, employee health and emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine work‐related emotion as a mechanism explaining the relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and employee physical health. Design/methodology/approach Study participants were employees at a large Canadian health care organization (n=72). A survey methodology was utilized. Findings POS was positively related to physical health. Negative emotion fully mediated this relationship between POS and health, and positive emotion was found to partially mediate this relationship. Research limitations/implications Cross sectional survey data is one potential limitation. Findings suggest that further investigation of the links between POS, positive and negative job‐related emotion and physical health would be a fruitful avenue of research. Practical implications Organizations can increase POS through actions that have been investigated in past research. Increasing POS would appear to be one avenue that an organization can utilize to positively influence employee health through its effect on employee work‐related emotion. Originality/value The paper addresses previous calls to investigate mechanisms underlying the relationship between POS and physical health, and shows that job‐related emotion plays a role in explaining why POS is positively correlated with physical health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".