Differential Typology of Burnout in the Ukrainian Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of study is a qualitative classification of manifestations of professional burnout based on quantitative indicators of exhaustion, cynicism and inefficiency. The paper substantiates the need to differentiate the symptoms of burnout from similar manifestations of professional maladjustment and personality disorders. The study involved 355 specialists of socionomic professions from different regions of Ukraine with work experience from 1 to 39 years (50.15% of men, 49.85% of women). Based on the cluster analysis of the three basic symptoms of burnout (exhaustion, cynicism, and depersonalisation), the groups of engaged and burned-out employees were identified, as well as qualitative and quantitative differences were showed. A comparative analysis of the groups was carried out for a number of additional diagnostic parameters: emotional attitude to work, the ratio of losses and gains of personal resources, the scale of psychological well-being, loyalty to the organisation. Typological profiles of 8 professional groups were created: effective employees ("engaged", "growing" and "taking" type), ineffective employees ("dependent" and "disengaged-relaxed" type), and three groups representing successive stages of burnout (accumulation of job stress, burnout itself and severe degree, accompanied by psychological distress in all spheres of life). The results allow us to conclude that particular symptoms of depersonalisation and reduction in personal achievements are not a sufficient basis for diagnosing burnout syndrome. The symptom of depersonalisation may be a manifestation of other professional deformations, not caused by burnout. Without combination with other parameters, the professional inefficiency is not a symptom of burnout; this is a common sign of insufficient development of competencies or an erroneous choice of the type of activity. Appropriate ways of organisational and psychological support are proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".