Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences.
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
Employees are exposed to a wide variety of job demands that deplete personal resources and necessitate recovery. In light of this need, research on work recovery has focused on how distinct recovery experiences during postwork time relate to employee well-being. However, investigators have largely tested the effects of these experiences in isolation, neglecting the possibility that profiles of recovery experiences may exist and influence the recovery process. The current set of studies adopted a person-centered approach using latent profile analysis to understand whether unique constellations of recovery experiences-psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, control, and problem-solving pondering-emerged for 2 samples of full-time employees. In Study 1, which involved a single-time-point assessment, we identified 4 unique profiles of recovery experiences, tested whether job demands (i.e., time pressure, role ambiguity) and job resources (i.e., job control) differentiated profile membership, and evaluated whether each profile uniquely related to employee well-being outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion, engagement, somatic complaints). In Study 2, which involved 2 time points, we replicated 3 of the 4 profiles observed in Study 1, and tested 2 additional antecedents rated by employees' supervisors: leader-member exchange and supervisor support for recovery. Across both studies, unique differences emerged in regard to antecedents and outcomes tied to recovery experience profile membership. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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