Workaholism, organizational life and well‐being of Norwegian nursing staff
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 study is to examine the relationship of individual difference personality characteristics (Big Five, generalized self‐efficacy), workaholism components and work life factors on measures of job satisfaction, burnout and health complaints. Design/methodology/approach Data were gathered from 496 nursing staff caring for terminally ill patients in five health care facilities in Norway using questionnaires. Findings Hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for personal demographic and work setting characteristics, indicated strong relationships of particular Big Five personality factors, workaholism components and work life factors with both job satisfaction and burnout; health complaints were only predicted by personality factors. Practical implications Future research must examine the generalizability of these findings to other samples in different countries. Implications for management and organizations are offered. Originality/value This paper contributes to the understanding of personality factors to workaholics in work outcomes and well‐being.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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