MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160666315 · doi:10.1177/0022146510395023

Boundary-Spanning Work Demands and Their Consequences for Guilt and Psychological Distress

2011· article· en· W2160666315 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 Health and Social Behavior · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
KeywordsFeelingPsychologyDistressAssociation (psychology)Mental healthWork (physics)Psychological distressClinical psychologyBoundary (topology)Emotional distressSocial psychologyPsychiatryAnxietyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from a national survey of working Americans (Work, Stress, and Health Survey; N = 1,042), the authors examine the associations between boundary-spanning work demands and self-reported feelings of guilt and distress. The authors document gender differences in the emotional and mental health consequences of boundary-spanning work demands, as indexed by the frequency of receiving work-related contact outside of normal work hours. Specifically, the authors observe that frequent work contact is associated with more feelings of guilt and distress among women only. Analyses also demonstrate that guilt accounts for the positive association between the frequency of work contact and distress among women. Statistical adjustments for levels of guilt reduce the positive association between frequent work contact and distress among women to nonsignificance. The findings underscore the importance of focusing on gender and emotions in work-family interface processes, as well as their implications for psychological health.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.230 · 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