Workaholism in organizations: concepts, results and future research directions
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 review examines the literature on workaholism in organizations. Although the topic of workaholism has received considerable attention in the popular press, relatively little research has been devoted to increasing our understanding of it. Workaholism is acknowledged to be a stable individual characteristic, though how it is distinguished from other characteristics is often unclear. The review addresses the following areas: types of workaholics, definitions of workaholism, measures of workaholism, the prevalence of workaholism, validating job behaviors, antecedents of workaholism, work outcome consequences, health consequences, extra‐work satisfactions and family functioning, evaluating workaholism components, possible gender differences, reducing workaholism and future research directions. Research programs begun by Robinson and his colleagues and by Spence and Robbins, though having different emphases, serve as useful starting points for future research efforts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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