Workaholism among Australian psychologists: gender differences
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
Purpose − This study aims to examine gender differences in three workaholism and workaholism‐related variables. Design/methodology/approach − Uses measures developed by Spence and Robbins and examines gender differences in three workaholism components, workaholic job behaviors and work and well‐being outcomes among Australian psychologists. Findings − Females and males were found to differ on many personal and situational demographic characters, two of three workaholism components (work involvement, and feeling driven to work) males scoring higher. Females, however, reported higher levels of particular workaholic job behaviors (e.g. perfectionism, job stress) likely to be associated with lower levels of satisfaction and well‐being. Females and males scored similarly on work outcomes, family satisfaction, physical health and emotional health. Females indicated more psychosomatic symptoms and less community satisfaction but more friends satisfaction. Originality/value − Aids in the understanding of workaholism in organizations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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