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 The purpose of this paper is to investigate gender differences in burnout, style of coping and the availability of peer support among high‐tech engineers Design/methodology/approach A longitudinal study investigated gender differences in burnout, style of coping and the availability of peer support among high‐tech engineers, an interesting occupational group from a gender perspective both because of the masculine culture of the engineering profession and the many prejudices against women engineers. Both the masculine culture and the prejudices help explain the paucity of women engineers and predict high levels of burnout among them. Findings The paper's findings supported this prediction. They revealed a significant gender difference in burnout, with women engineers reporting higher levels of burnout than men. The gender differences in burnout were interpreted as related to other findings: women's greater tendency to utilize emotion‐focused coping, their smaller peer support and greater work–family conflict. Originality/value In addition to their implications for gender theory and research and for burnout theory and research, the paper's findings point to the need to encourage and support the small and unique group of women engineers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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