MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075820244 · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v4n9p3

Social Relationships at Work: Moderator or Mediator of the Association Between Role Variables and Burnout?

2009· article· en· W2075820244 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Dubreuil, Marie-Christine Laughrea, Alexandre J. S. Morin, François Courcy, Olivier Loiselle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationMediationBurnoutPsychologySocial psychologyBootstrapping (finance)Multilevel modelAssociation (psychology)AmbiguityRole conflictVariablesRegression analysisEconometricsClinical psychologyPolitical scienceStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies have found direct relations between burnout, role conflict, role ambiguity and work relationships, but few have verified the possibility of moderation and mediation effects between these variables. This cross-sectional study investigates these two possibilities in an attempt to clarify the function of work relationships in the association between role variables and burnout. This study was conducted on a sample of 263 French-speaking Canadian workers from nine different organizations. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to investigate the purported interaction between social relationships and role variables. Mediation effects were also verified through multiple regressions involving a bootstrapping procedure to estimate the indirect effects of role variables on burnout. The results provided no evidence in favor of moderation. Conversely, the results revealed rather that social relationships did mediate the relationship between role variables and burnout.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and ManagementSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207