A person-centered perspective on the factors associated with the work recovery process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives This research identified profiles characterized by distinct levels of overcommitment, rumination, psychological detachment (Studies 1 and 2), and need for recovery (Study 2). This research also considers the role of hindrance demands and resources in the prediction of profile membership, and the outcomes of these profiles.Methods These objectives were addressed in two empirical cross-sectional studies relying on self-reported questionnaires. Study 1 relies on a convenience sample of French workers from a variety of occupations. Study 2 relies on a convenience sample of French nurses and nursing assistants.Results Latent profile analyses revealed four identical profiles in both studies (High Ability to Achieve Recovery, Moderately High Ability to Achieve Recovery, Moderately Low Ability to Achieve Recovery, and Low Ability to Achieve Recovery), accompanied by an additional (Normative) profile in Study 2. The results from both studies revealed well-differentiated outcome associations, which generally matched the theoretical desirability of the identified profiles. Likewise, hindrance demands were associated with a decreased likelihood of membership into the High Ability to Achieve Recovery profile, as well as an increased likelihood of membership into the Low Ability to Achieve Recovery profile across studies.Conclusions Theoretical contributions and implications for practice 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".