MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Energy in the Context of Work-Nonwork Interface: A Look at the Everyday

2020· article· en· W3045565596 on OpenAlex
Juliana Badovinac, Chu‐Hsiang Chang, Seonghee Cho, Wonjoon Chung, Jason J. Dahling, Nerisa Dozo, Charlotte Fritz, Allison S. Gabriel, Anita C. Keller, Sooyeol Kim, Stacey L. Parker, John P. Trougakos, Hannes Zacher

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Work (physics)ConversationPublic relationsEveryday lifeEnergy (signal processing)SociologyPsychologyStressorSocial psychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the modern workplace, employees are increasingly faced with high work demands, long work hours, and intensive time pressure, all of which present challenges for employees’ use and management of their personal resources at work. To better understand human energy in work organizations and its implications, we need to examine human employees’ energy management strategies in dealing with everyday demands — that is, human energy is influenced by practices, activities, experiences, and small actions that would seem rather ordinary and mundane in people’s routine work and life (e.g., eating, recovery activities at or off work, or reattachment). Specifically, it is important to understand the blurry boundary between work and personal domains in modern society, due to the prevalence of communication technology (e.g., the Internet, Smartphone, and PC). In other words, employees’ workplace experiences (e.g., stressors) could influence their personal domain activities, and vice versa. Thus, this symposium aims to stimulate a scholarly conversation and move forward our understanding of human energy in organizations using the lens of the everyday work- and non-work spillover effects. Employing diverse sets of methods and contexts, papers in this symposium reveal how energy-related activities, practices, experiences, and small actions in people’s everyday routine in both domains may involve unique individual choices, shape individuals’ experiences and behavior, and even influence workplace outcomes that do not appear to directly relate to energy. In line with this year’s Academy Meeting theme “Broadening our Sight”, our symposium also highlights a purpose of organizations that goes beyond pursuing economic profit and lies in constructing positive human experiences and fulfilling human capacity potential in the workplace. The Hidden Costs of Challenge Stressors: Differential Effects of Stressors on Snacking at Work Presenter: Anita Keller; U. of Groningen Presenter: Chu-Hsiang Chang; Michigan State U. Managing Energy at Work for Recovery at Home Presenter: Stacey L. Parker; U. of Queensland Presenter: Hannes Zacher; Leipzig U. Presenter: Nerisa Dozo; U. of Melbourne Presenter: Sooyeol Kim; National U. of Singapore (NUS) It Is Important What My Leader Experienced at Night: A Daily Dyadic Study of Follower Creativity Presenter: Seonghee Cho; North Carolina State U. Presenter: Sooyeol Kim; National U. of Singapore (NUS) Presenter: WonJoon Chung; Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic U. A Self-Determination Theory Perspective of Morning Reattachment to Work Presenter: John P. Trougakos; U. of Toronto Presenter: Allison S. Gabriel; U. of Arizona Presenter: Juliana Badovinac; Queen’s U. Presenter: Jason Dahling; College of New Jersey

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.296 · 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