Character Strengths in Counselors: Relations With Meaningful Work and Burnout
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
The primary goal of this study was to examine the relations from counselors’ character strengths to burnout via the potential mediating effect of meaningful work. We also compared mean levels of counselors’ character strengths to population means and conducted regression analyses to examine which character strengths uniquely predicted meaningful work and burnout. Counselors in our sample reported significantly higher levels on 13 of the 24 character strengths compared to a normed sample, with strengths like love of learning, perspective, and social intelligence being particularly elevated. Additionally, regression analyses revealed that prudence and hope predicted both meaningful work and burnout; love, perspective, and zest predicted meaningful work; and forgiveness, honesty, and self-regulation predicted burnout. These character strengths were included in the final structural equation model. Partially supporting hypotheses, prudence, perspective, and zest were related to meaningful work, which were, in turn, negatively related to burnout.
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) | 0.000 | 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