MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976547124 · doi:10.1108/pr-07-2018-0241

Time-related work stress and counterproductive work behavior

2019· article· en· W2976547124 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterproductive work behaviorPsychologyExtant taxonSocial psychologyOriginalityPersonalityWork (physics)Work engagementWork stressBig Five personality traitsApplied psychologyOrganizational commitmentOrganizational citizenship behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose With a basis in the conservation of resources theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between employees’ experience of time-related work stress and their engagement in counterproductive work behavior (CWB), as well as the invigorating roles that different deviant personality traits might play in this process. Design/methodology/approach Two-wave survey data with a time lag of three weeks were collected from 127 employees in Pakistani organizations. Findings Employees’ sense that they have insufficient time to do their job tasks spurs their CWB, and this effect is particularly strong if they have strong Machiavellian, narcissistic or psychopathic tendencies. Originality/value This study adds to extant research by identifying employees’ time-related work stress as an understudied driver of their CWB and the three personality traits that constitute the dark triad as triggers of the translation of time-related work stress into CWB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it