MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768867613 · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12175

Balancing tensions: Buffering the impact of organisational restructuring and downsizing on employee well‐being

2017· article· en· W2768867613 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Harney, Na Fu, Yseult Freeney

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringStructural equation modelingWork (physics)BusinessPerceptionHuman resource managementPsychologyMarketingManagementEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines the impact of employee experiences of restructuring and downsizing on well‐being. The job demands‐resources model was used to develop hypotheses related to job demands in the form of work intensity and job resources in the form of consultation. The job demands‐resources model allows for direct incorporation of employee perceptions and does not assume a singular, predetermined consequence of HRM practices. Hypotheses were tested via structural equation modelling on a nationally representative sample of over 5,110 employees from the Republic of Ireland in 2009. The findings indicate that work intensity serves as a conduit through which experiences of restructuring and downsizing negatively impact employee well‐being. Notably, consultation served as a buffer, diminishing the extent of this negative experience. The findings illuminate the complex pathways that shape how restructuring and downsizing are perceived by employees and the consequences for well‐being. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Resource Management JournalSame topicOrganizational Downsizing and RestructuringFrench-language works237,207