MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148182559 · doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12291

Job insecurity, work‐induced mental health deprivation, and timely completion of work tasks

2021· article· en· W3148182559 on OpenAlexaff
Inam Ul Haq, Dirk De Clercq, Muhammad Umer Azeem

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthWork (physics)FaithWorryJob insecurityPsychologyHuman resource managementBusinessHuman resourcesPublic relationsSocial psychologyManagementPolitical sciencePsychiatryAnxietyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To unpack the relationship between employees’ job insecurity and their timely completion of work tasks, this study proposes a mediating role of beliefs about work‐induced mental health deprivation and a moderating role of religious faith. Three‐wave survey data from Pakistan‐based workers and supervisors in the banking industry indicate a critical reason that an unstable job situation diminishes the chances that employees finish work activities on time: their convictions that the employer compromises their mental health. Religious faith mitigates this harmful effect, through diminished work‐induced mental health deprivation, such that the impact on work activities is weaker among employees who can draw from their religious beliefs. For human resource managers, this study highlights a salient risk for employees who worry about their future in the organization and make the situation worse by failing to meet deadlines; it also reveals some options to mitigate this risk by leveraging employees’ pertinent personal resources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Human ResourcesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207