A Multilevel Person-Centered Perspective on the Role of Job Demands and Resources for Employees’ Job Engagement and Burnout Profiles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the configurations, or profiles, taken by distinct global and specific facets of job engagement and burnout (by relying on a bifactor operationalization of these constructs) among a nationally representative sample of Canadian Defence employees ( n = 13,088; nested within 65 work units). The present study also adopted a multilevel perspective to investigate the role of job demands (work overload and role ambiguity), as well as individual (psychological empowerment), workgroup (interpersonal justice), supervisor (transformational leadership), and organizational (organizational support) resources in the prediction of profile membership. Latent profile analyses revealed five profiles of employees: Burned-Out/Disengaged (7.13%) , Burned-Out/Involved (12.13%), Engaged (18.14%), Engaged/Exhausted (15.50%), and Normative (47.10%). The highest turnover intentions were observed in the Burned-Out/Disengaged profile, and the lowest in the Engaged profile. Employees’ perceptions of job demands and resources were also associated with profile membership across both levels, although the effects of psychological empowerment were more pronounced than the effects of job demands and resources related to the workgroup, supervisor, and organization. Individual-level effects were also more pronounced than effects occurring at the work unit level, where shared perceptions of work overload and organizational support proved to be the key shared drivers of profile membership.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it