Identifying Coping Profiles and Profile Differences in Role Engagement and Subjective Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coping strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be used simultaneously, a fact which has rarely been examined in coping research. We examined what kinds of coping profiles could be found in data concerning Finnish health care and service employees (n = 2756). We also studied whether role engagement (family-to-work-enrichment, work-to-family-enrichment, emotional energy at work, and work engagement) and subjective well-being (life, parental, and marital satisfaction, and psychological distress) differ between coping profiles. The data were analyzed through latent profile (LPA) and covariance analyses (Ancovas). LPA revealed seven distinct coping profiles: two active groups, one passive group, one low and two high copers’ groups and one moderate group. These results indicate that coping strategies are not mutually exclusive and that people might use different strategies simultaneously. The covariance analyses revealed that the most significant differences concerned role engagement: active copers showed higher role engagement (e.g. enrichment, work engagement) than moderate or low copers. The findings imply that the indicators of role engagement deserve more attention in coping research in healthy working adults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".