Meaning in Work and Meaning at Work: Empirically Based Clarity of the Constructs
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
Meaning in the context of work plays a significant role in many of our lives. Yet empirically grounded clarity about what the construct signifies is lacking. In our paper, we disaggregate meaning in the context of work to meaning in work and meaning at work (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Using mixed methods approach we discover the dimensions of the two constructs based on qualitative (semi-structured interviews) and quantitative (survey and CFA) studies, develop robust scales to measure meaning in work and meaning at work, and probe the relationships between the two constructs based on qualitative (semi-structured and structured interviews) and quantitative (survey and CFA) studies. Our results clearly indicate that the empirically supported main dimensions of meaning in work are fulfilment, connection, perceived importance of the work and purpose of the work; that meaning at work is represented by a wider set of dimensions than we had envisaged based on the existing literature; and that the relationship between meaning in work and meaning at work is interesting and dynamic with several nuances. We conclude our paper by discussing the theoretical and empirical contributions, the managerial implications, and the future research areas.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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