MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292202375 · doi:10.1037/ocp0000337

Role of work breaks in well-being and performance: A systematic review and future research agenda.

2022· review· en· W4292202375 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhanna Lyubykh, Duygu Gülseren, Zahra Premji, Timothy G. Wingate, Connie Deng, Lisa J. Bélanger, Nick Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsPsycINFOExtant taxonWork (physics)PsychologyObservational studyApplied psychologySystematic reviewWell-beingIndustrial and organizational psychologyJob performanceEmpirical researchSocial psychologyMEDLINEJob satisfactionEpistemologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 83). Based on the extant research, we propose that work breaks can be described and classified in terms of five features: initiator, duration, frequency, activities, and experiences. The result of our review is an integrative model that comprehensively captures the relationship between work breaks and well-being and performance outcomes, as well as the mechanisms and boundary conditions of these relationships. We conclude by proposing avenues for the future study and practice of work breaks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Health PsychologySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207