MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165811229 · doi:10.5093/jwop2021a8

Heavy-Work Investment: Its dimensionality, Invariance across 9 Countries and Levels before and during the COVID-19’s Pandemic

2021· article· es· W3165811229 on OpenAlexaff
Or Shkoler, Edna Rabenu, Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, Filippo Ferrari, Burçin Hatipoğlu, Antônio Roazzi, Takuma Kimura, Filiz Tabak, Horia Moașa, Cristinel Vasiliu, Aharon Tziner, Mariana J. Lebrón

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicConstruct (python library)Work (physics)Investment (military)Exploratory researchGeographyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyComputer sciencePoliticsSocial scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goals of the current comparative and half-exploratory paper are to: 1) shed light on the properties of the relatively “new” construct, Heavy-Work Investment (HWI) and its two dimensions – Time Commitment and Work Intensity, (2) assess differences across 9 countries in relation to HWI, (3) gauge the effect of demographical parameters on HWI, and (4) investigate the interaction between them and COVID-19’s pandemic (i.e., before COVID-19, and during the COVID-19 pandemic). Data of 3,418 employees were collected from 9 different countries: Israel, Romania, Japan, USA, Pakistan, Italy, Turkey, Brazil, and Germany. Among other findings, analyses revealed that HWI construct is stable across countries and that the mean investment at work (in the form of both time and efforts) is higher during the COVID-19’s pandemic than before it. Discussion section summarizes the findings of the entire research, and elaborates on limitations and future research suggestions.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueJournal of Work and Organizational PsychologySame topicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207