MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035945919 · doi:10.1002/job.115

Re‐thinking burnout

2001· article· en· W2035945919 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Iain L. Densten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational Behavior · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash UniversityUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsDepersonalizationBurnoutEmotional exhaustionPsychologyConceptualizationConfirmatory factor analysisSocial psychologyClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The conceptualization and psychometric properties of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1981 ) were examined by this study. A new structure of five burnout factors was identified using a sample of 480 Australian law enforcement managers. An examination of each item, along with single and confirmatory factor analyses supported both emotional exhaustion and the lack of personal accomplishment factors splitting into two factors while depersonalization remained a single factor. The new five‐factor structure incorporates psychological and somatic strain aspects of emotional exhaustion, and two aspects of the lack of personal accomplishment, namely self and others. This expanded factor structure clarifies the multi‐dimensional nature of the MBI. Further research directions are discussed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations127
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Organizational BehaviorSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207