EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS AND MEANING OF WORK: A RESEARCH WITH HIGHER EDUCATION PROFESSORS
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
ABSTRACT Purpose: To explore the meaning of work, analyzing and comparing how it is experienced by workers who are subject to different employment relationships. Originality/value: The research is important because it advances in the discussion about the flexibilization of labor relations and its impact on how professionals experience and attribute meaning to their work. In addition, we found a gap in empirical research relating to the meaning of work and different types of employment relationships. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted qualitative and exploratory research with professors from the same higher education institution that work under different employment relationships. Forty-five professors participated in the study, whose reports were submitted to discourse analysis. Findings: Initially, the results reinforced the six categories proposed by Morin (2001): work that 1. generates results; 2. is intrinsically satisfactory; 3. morally acceptable; 4. source of satisfactory relationships; 5. guarantees security and autonomy, and 6. keeps the person occupied. In addition, three new categories associated with the professors' work have been identified: "work as a calling", "work as identity construction", and "work as a masochistic practice". Our results point to the complexity of maintaining professionals working side by side but under different employment relationships. Resentment, anguish, and frustration were some of the feelings that we consider to be associated with this reality, and represent a challenge to be faced by organizations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it