Techno(Stress) and Techno(Distress): Validation of a Specific TechnoStressors Index (TSI) Among Quebec Lawyers
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
The pervasive and ubiquitous characteristics of information technology has been associated to technostress. Current measures oftechnostress do not consider some recent issues of the stress generated by technology in the day-to-day work of lawyers. This paper presents the validation of a 25-item self-report scale (TechnoStressors-Index-TSI) for the study of technostress in lawyers' professional context. Items were constructed through qualitative exploratory interviews (N=22) and adaptation of existing scales. The scale was tested (N=40) and retested (N=2027) among Quebec lawyers using EFA and CFA. This scale proposes a second order reflexive model of five dimensions to understand technostress. The scale validation among a large sample of professionals helped to fulfill the gap regarding specific technostressors to which lawyers are exposed and leading to technostress at work or other health outcomes, such as psychological distress. For further research, it needs to be validated with other professionals to confirm its relevance in different contexts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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