Do age and gender contribute to workers’ burnout symptoms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite mounting evidence on the association between work stress and burnout, there is limited knowledge about the extent to which workers' age and gender are associated with burnout. AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between age, gender and their interaction with burnout in a sample of Canadian workers. METHODS: Data were collected in 2009-12 from a sample of 2073 Canadian workers from 63 workplaces in the province of Quebec. Data were analysed with multilevel regression models to test for linear and non-linear relationships between age and burnout. Analyses adjusted for marital status, parental status, educational level and number of working hours were conducted on the total sample and stratified by gender. RESULTS: Data were collected from a sample of 2073 Canadian workers (response rate 73%). Age followed a non-linear relationship with emotional exhaustion and total burnout, while it was linearly related to cynicism and reduced professional efficacy. Burnout level reduced with increasing age in men, but the association was bimodal in women, with women aged between 20-35 and over 55 years showing the highest burnout level. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that burnout symptoms varied greatly according to different life stages of working men and women. Younger men, and women aged between 20-35 and 55 years and over are particularly susceptible and should be targeted for programmes to reduce risk of 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".