Workaholism among Australian women psychologists: antecedents and consequences
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
This research considered potential antecedents and consequences of workaholism in a sample of 324 female Australian psychologists. Three workaholism types were compared based on measures developed by Spence and Robbins. Data were collected using self‐report questionnaires completed anonymously. Antecedents included personal and work situation characteristics, a measure of personal beliefs and fears and a measure of organizational values supporting work‐personal life imbalance. Consequences included measures of validating job behaviors, work outcomes, psychological health and extra‐work satisfactions. The three workaholism types differed in personal beliefs and fears, work addicts (WAs) scoring higher than work enthusiasts (WEs). WAs indicated less job and career satisfaction than both WEs and enthusiastic addicts (EAs) and lower future career prospects than did EAs. WAs also reported lower emotional health than did WEs. The workaholism types were similar on extra work satisfactions. Each workaholism type also worked similar hours per week as well. These findings validate previous conclusions indicating similar findings for both men and women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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