MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emotional Burnout: Prevalence Rate and Symptoms in Different Socio-Professional Groups

2020· article· en· W3006047469 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Віталій Бочелюк, Наталія Завацька, Маріанна Тоба, Nikita S. Panov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutEmotional exhaustionPrevalencePsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The relevance of the subject matter is connected with the emotional burnout and its long-lasting negative consequences for both the individual and society becoming commonplace. Background: The paper covers the psychological reconstruction of the concept of "burnout" in terms of its implicit understanding and differentiated diagnosis. Method: The consolidated empirical data on the commonness of burnout among various categories of employees obtained using the MBI questionnaire. The descriptive statistics were presented for nine different professional groups (total of 441 people) of different age, degree of personal responsibility and emotional involvement in their job — the frequency analysis of expressiveness of emotional burnout syndrome performed in the context of the procedural-dynamic model. Results: Results revealed that the symptoms of burnout are quantitatively and qualitatively vary in different occupational settings. Based on the content analysis of the data obtained through face-to-face psychological counselling of clients, a list of manifestations and experiences was developed, accompanying burnout complaints as a component of a difficult life situation: emotional and motivational-semantic sphere, life position, behavioural, and psychological and physiological aspects. Conclusion: Attention was drawn to the necessity of clarification of social-psychological norms and clinical signs, which reliably and differentially diagnose its symptoms (in contrast to fatigue, depression or normative age crises). The conclusions provide suggestions and solutions on the principles of psychological prevention and assistance (self-help) in situations of emotional burnout.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207