MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066529479 · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.46

The Influence of Prior Commitment on the Reactions of Layoff Survivors to Organizational Downsizing.

2003· article· en· W2066529479 on OpenAlexaff
Marjorie Armstrong‐Stassen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLayoffOrganizational commitmentCoping (psychology)BurnoutJob satisfactionOccupational burnoutClinical psychologyPerceptionSocial psychologyPerceived organizational supportAffective events theoryAlienationOccupational stressContinuanceEmotional exhaustionJob performanceJob attitudeUnemployment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses (N = 179; Study 1) and managers (N = 154; Study 2) participated in 2 panel studies examining the relationship among prior commitment (affective and continuance commitment and perceived organizational support), coping strategies, and survivors' attitudes and perceptions during and following downsizing. In Study 1, perceived organizational support was significantly positively related to control-oriented coping, job satisfaction, and intention to remain and negatively related to perceived job insecurity and burnout 2 years later. In Study 2, coping mediated the relationship between the prior commitment variables and job alienation, health symptoms, and burnout following the downsizing. Control-oriented coping was associated with elevated levels of health symptoms and burnout following the downsizing, suggesting that control-oriented coping may have positive effects in the short term but potentially harmful effects in the long term.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations108
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Health PsychologySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207