Passion for work: Determinants and outcomes
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
Passion can be uplifting and energizing; it can also be destructive and obsessive. The work realm represents a fertile ground to observe this duality of passion. This chapter provides a 10-year overview of the research on passion for work. The initial work on passion and its conceptualization is followed by a more focused presentation of the studies conducted in the workplace. First, various studies are presented that validate the concept of passion for work, distinguishing between harmonious passion and obsessive passion. Second, research that has examined the convergent and divergent validity of these two types of passion for work and their consequences on cognitive processes, psychological well-being, interpersonal relationships, and performance is discussed. Third, we present research on the determinants of passion, specifically the individual and social factors involved in the early and on-going development of passion for work. Finally, future research directions are proposed to stimulate new and exciting research in this growing field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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