An Occupational Portrait of Emotional Labor Requirements and Their Health Consequences for Workers
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
Scholarship has revealed inconsistent evidence on the issue of whether emotional labor represents an occupational health risk. Drawing from emotion regulation theory, the conservation of resources model and the interactive service work literature, we examine the association between occupational emotional labor requirements and worker well-being. Analyses of a national sample of American workers merged with occupational information from the O*NET database reveal no evidence that these requirements are associated with psychological distress or high blood pressure; in contrast, emotional labor requirements are associated with a reduced likelihood of self-rated poor health. Consistent with the conservation of resources model, however, we find health penalties for individuals with emotional labor requirements in resource-deprived work contexts. Our findings suggest that for individuals with limited job autonomy and little access to civil interpersonal relationships with coworkers, emotional labor requirements may impede successful emotion regulation in ways that contribute to negative occupational outcomes and strain.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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