Élaboration d’une échelle d’épanouissement psychologique en milieu de travail (ÉÉPMT) et examen de ses qualités psychométriques.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to develop a personal flourishing psychological scale specific to the occupational context and then examine its metrological qualities. The scale, composed of eight verbal items, is an adaptation to the occupational context of the Flourishing Scale made by Diener et al. (2010), validated in French by Villieux, Sovet, Jung and Guilbert (2016). A total of 405 French employees completed the scale. Results show good internal consistency (omega higher than .75) and satisfactory temporal stability (r = .90). The examination of the factor structure of the scale suggests a one-dimensional structure. Finally, the convergent validity tested with a measure of life satisfaction at work is also conclusive. With its integrative construction based on recent theories of well-being, its satisfactory psychometric qualities and a form that is both short and handy to administer, the scale is of great interest to both researchers and practitioners interested in the field of well-being at work. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".