Complementary variable‐ and person‐centred approaches to the dimensionality of workaholism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research relies on complementary variable‐ and person‐centred approaches to investigate the underlying dimensionality of the workaholism construct. In three studies (Study 1: N = 343 workers; Study 2: N = 654 firefighters in Sample 1 and N = 247 administrative and technical employees in Sample 2; and Study 3: N = 153 nurses in Sample 1 and N = 359 educators in Sample 2), the results showed that employees' workaholism ratings simultaneously reflected a global overarching workaholism construct, which co‐existed with two specific dimensions (working excessively and compulsively). In Study 1, global levels of self‐determined motivation were associated with higher global levels of workaholism, whereas perceived supervisor support was negatively related to global levels of workaholism. We then examined the distinct configurations, or profiles, taken by workaholism dimensions (global workaholism, and specific working excessively and compulsively; Studies 2 and 3) and psychological detachment (Study 3). Studies 2 and 3 also documented the associations between these workaholism profiles, and correlated predictor (e.g. supervisor support, workload) and outcome (e.g. emotional exhaustion, work performance) variables. Three of the four profiles identified were similar across studies ( Low Global and Average Specific Workaholism , Average Global and Specific Workaholism and High Global and Average Specific Workaholism ), whereas one profile was different across studies and samples. In both studies, the High Global and Average Specific Workaholism profile was associated with the worst correlated outcome variables (e.g. high levels of emotional exhaustion, low levels of job satisfaction).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".