MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061095672 · doi:10.1111/jar.12058

Prosocial Motivation, Stress and Burnout Among Direct Support Workers

2013· article· en· W2061095672 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsocial behaviorBurnoutPsychologyDepersonalizationEmotional exhaustionSocial psychologyFeelingDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study explores whether the desire to engage in work that is beneficial to others moderates the effects of stress on burnout. METHOD: Based on a survey of 1570 direct support professionals in Ontario, this study conducted linear regression analyses and tested for the interaction effects of prosocial motivation on occupational stress and burnout. RESULTS: Prosocial motivation significantly moderated the association of emotional exhaustion (EE) and role boundary stress with depersonalization (DP). Prosocial motivation also moderated the effects of role ambiguity stress with a direct support worker's sense of personal accomplishment. In contrast, prosocial motivation magnified feelings of EE when interacted with a sense of personal accomplishment. CONCLUSIONS: Prosocial motivation plays an important role in explaining the relatively low levels of DP in the sector. The study advances our understanding of the key components of burnout among direct support workers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.321 · 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