MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970136890 · doi:10.4026/1303-2860.2008.0061.x

Type A Behavior, Work Outcomes and Psychological Well-Being: Achievement Striving Versus Impatience

2008· article· en· W1970136890 on OpenAlexafffund
Ronald J. Burke

Bibliographic record

Venueiş, güç/İktisadi yenilik dergisi · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNorges ForskningsrådYork UniversityUniversitetet i Tromsø
KeywordsPsychologyWork (physics)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effects of two Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP) dimensions on job and life satisfaction and psychosomatic symptoms: Achievement Striving (AS) and Impatience-Irritability (II), in a large sample of Norwegian human service workers (N=1590). The effects of three job demands (work conflict, work-family conflict, lack of autonomy) were also considered. Data were collected using questionnaires. AS and II were uncorrelated as predicted and had different patterns of relationship with job stressors and the satisfaction and well-being outcomes; II had a negative relationship with job and life satisfaction and a positive relationship with psychosomatic symptoms while AS had a positive relationship with life satisfaction. AS and II contributed additional explained variance on all dependent variables controlling for personal and work situation characteristics. Few TABP dimension X job demands interactions were significant suggesting that AS and II likely influence outcomes directly rather than in interaction with job demands

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiş, güç/İktisadi yenilik dergisiSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207