MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147079014 · doi:10.1037/a0013290

Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover-crossover perspective.

2009· article· en· W2147079014 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

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Spillover effectSocial psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychological interventionAffect (linguistics)Partner effectsQuality (philosophy)Job satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study of 168 dual-earner couples examined the relationship between workaholism and relationship satisfaction. More specifically, on the basis of the literature, it was hypothesized that workaholism is positively related to work-family conflict. In addition, the authors predicted that workaholism is related to reduced support provided to the partner, through work-family conflict, and that individuals who receive considerable support from their partners are more satisfied with their relationship. Finally, the authors hypothesized direct crossover of relationship satisfaction between partners. The results of structural equation modeling analyses using the matched responses of both partners supported these hypotheses. Moreover, in line with predictions, the authors found that gender did not affect the strength of the relationships in the proposed model. The authors discuss workplace interventions as possible ways to help workaholics and their partners.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.407 · 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