Harmonious passion as an explanation of the relation between signature strengths’ use and well-being at work: Test of an intervention program
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
Using signature strengths at work has been shown to influence workers’ optimal functioning and well-being. However, little is known about the processes through which signature strengths lead to positive outcomes. The present research thus aimed at exploring the role of having a harmonious passion in the relation between using signature strengths and well-being. For this purpose, an intervention was developed where participants ( n = 186) completed three activities aiming at developing their knowledge and use of their signature strengths at work. The results showed (1) that the intervention successfully increased participants’ use of their signature strengths, (2) that participants from the experimental group reported a higher use of their signature strengths at the end of the study than participants from the control group, and (3) that increases in the use of signature strengths reported by participants from the experimental group were related to increases in harmonious passion, which in turn led to higher levels of well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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