Does Leaders' Health (and Work-Related Experiences) Affect their Evaluation of Followers' Stress?
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
BACKGROUND: Stressed workers suffer from severe health problems which appear to have increased. Poor leadership is especially considered a source of stress. Indeed, supervisors might perceive their subordinates to be similar to them as far as stress is concerned and this might more widespread in organizations than previously thought. METHODS: The present research investigates the relationships between leaders' health, in terms of work-related stress, mental health, and workplace bullying and their evaluation of subordinates' stress. Five regression models were formulated to test our hypothesis. This is a cross-sectional study among 261 Italian leaders, using supervisor self-assessment and leaders' assessments of their subordinates. RESULTS: Leaders' health was related to their evaluation of staff stress. Job demand, lack of job control, and lack of support by colleagues and supervisors evaluated in their subordinates were particularly associated with the leaders' own health. CONCLUSION: Implications for developing healthy leaders are finally discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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