Flow at work: An experience sampling approach
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
One of the core constructs of the positive psychology movement is that of ‘flow’, or optimal experience. The current study investigated the relationship between ‘flow’, the core job dimensions, and subjective well‐being (SWB), as well as distinguishing between the state and trait components of flow. Experience sampling methodology (ESM) was used to track 40 architectural students over a 15 week semester while they engaged in studio work. Hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) indicated that 74% of the variance in flow was attributable to situational characteristics compared to dispositional factors. Results also indicated that academic work that was high in skill variety and autonomy was associated with flow. Flow was found to be correlated with positive mood. Cross‐lagged regression analysis showed that momentary flow was predictive of momentary mood and not vice versa. The strengths and limitations of using ESM to study subjective work experiences and well‐being are discussed, as well as the implications of the study of flow or optimal experience for industrial/organizational psychology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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