MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029552482 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000001924

The Role of Employee Self-Efficacy in Top-Down Burnout Crossover

2020· article· en· W3029552482 on OpenAlexaff
Annick Parent‐Lamarche, Claude Fernet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional exhaustionBurnoutCynicismPsychologySelf-efficacySocial psychologyAffect (linguistics)Occupational stressClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Burnout has been a prominent topic in the management research for over 30 years. Yet few studies have explored the conditions that foster burnout from managers to employees (indirect crossover). Based on the principle of behavioral plasticity, we propose that self-efficacy is an adaptive resource that enables employees to counter the potentially crossover effects of burnout (ie, emotional exhaustion and cynicism). This proposal is partially supported by the results of a longitudinal analysis of educators (principals and teachers): a moderating effect of employee self-efficacy was found, but only for emotional exhaustion, which is considered the basic individual stress dimension of burnout. More specifically, managerial emotional exhaustion was associated with lower emotional exhaustion over time in employees who reported higher self-efficacy, with the inverse association for employees with lower self-efficacy. This suggests that managers' emotional exhaustion can indirectly affect the experience of a congruent emotional state in their subordinates. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207