MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131605744 · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2010.485352

Key questions regarding work engagement

2010· article· en· W2131605744 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork engagementEmployee engagementPublic engagementWork (physics)Context (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Social engagementSociologyCommunity engagementProcess (computing)Key (lock)PsychologyCustomer engagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer scienceSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the concept of work engagement and summarizes research on its most important antecedents. The authors formulate 10 key questions and shape a research agenda for engagement. In addition to the conceptual development and measurement of enduring work engagement, the authors discuss the importance of state work engagement. Further, they argue that the social context is crucial and may set the stage for a climate for engagement with an important role for management. Engaged employees conserve their own engagement through a process of job crafting. After discussing possible dark sides of engagement and the relationship between engagement and health, the article closes with a discussion of organizational interventions to increase work engagement.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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