MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297066089 · doi:10.1002/cdq.12304

How and when does personal life orientation predict well‐being?

2022· article· en· W4297066089 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Career Development Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife satisfactionJob satisfactionPersonal lifeOrientation (vector space)PsychologyWorking lifeSocial psychologyQuality (philosophy)Political scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examined the direct and indirect––as mediated by job satisfaction––effects of personal life orientation on life satisfaction. We also examined whether these direct and indirect associations differed between employees working onsite or remotely. Using data from 432 employees (152 working onsite and 280 working remotely), our results revealed that personal life orientation was positively related to life satisfaction and negatively related to job satisfaction. Moreover, both of these direct associations were stronger among onsite employees than among remote employees. As a result, the indirect effects of personal life orientation on life satisfaction were significantly mediated by job satisfaction among employees working onsite, but not among employees working remotely. This study thus reveals that working remotely may act as a double‐edged sword by buffering the negative effects of personal life orientation on job satisfaction, but also by limiting the positive effects of personal life orientation on life 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.176 · 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