Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research introduces a 15-item scale to measure love of the job in a professional context. The impetus for measuring job love was derived from extant psychology and sociology theory on the impact that the trilogy of mind has on behaviour. Although two of the dimensions of this trilogy (cognition and affect) are empirically measured in the organizational context, the third dimension of the trilogy (conation) appears to be overlooked. Interpersonal love theory supports the assumption that people who love an object are driven by a conative force, beyond cognition or emotion (affect) to preserve that object. We propose that jobs can be loved and valued objects and that this conative drive can be evaluated through a measure of love. The job love scale was tested on a sample of 310 professional accountants and consultants in Canada. Exploratory principal axis factoring indicated the presence of three key factors: passion, intimacy, and commitment. Results of structural equation modelling indicated discriminant validity between the job love scale and job satisfaction and job engagement. This new job love measure benefits organizational behaviour scholarship by tapping into the conative drive to explain employee behaviour.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".