Relationship between Emotional Labor Behavior and Burnout Level of Football Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the scope of this research, it is aimed to determine emotional labor behavior and burnout level of football coaches and to examine the relationship between them. In this study conducted in relational survey model, Emotional Labor Scale developed by Diefendorff et al. (2005) and adapted to Turkish by Basım and Beğenirbaş (2012), and Maslach Burnout Sclae developed by Maslach and Jackson (1981) and adapted to Turkish by Ergin (1992) were applied to 321 voluntary participants. Descriptive statistics (number of participants, minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation) regarding emotional labor and burnout levels of participants were calculated. Besides, pearson correlation coefficient was calculated with the aim of determining the level of relation between the sub-dimensions of emotional labor and burnout. p significance level in difference tests was taken as 0,05. Research results showed that burnout levels of coaches were low; as the sub-dimensions of emotional labor scale, the factors of deep acting and genuine emotions were high, and the factor of surface acting was low. According to the correlation results, it was determined that there was a low level negative relation between their burnout levels and surface acting behavior and a low level positive significant relation between deep acting behavior and genuine emotions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".