Soutien social et bien-être psychologique au travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le soutien social offert par l’organisation contribuerait à un bien-être psychologique au travail plus élevé. La présente étude a pour but de préciser le lien entre trois sources de soutien social (collègues, superviseur et organisation) et le bien-être psychologique au travail. Deux cent dix-sept travailleurs ont répondu à un questionnaire électronique autorapporté. Des analyses corrélationnelles ont permis d’établir que le soutien organisationnel perçu est la source de soutien la plus fortement reliée au bien-être psychologique au travail (r = .65, p < .001). Des analyses de médiation a posteriori permettent d’expliquer que le soutien organisationnel perçu serait un médiateur partiel du lien entre le soutien du superviseur et le bien-être psychologique au travail (tests de Sobel significatifs avec un alpha de 0.05). Ainsi, le soutien du superviseur semble contribuer à la formation du soutien organisationnel perçu et ce dernier serait la source de soutien la mieux corrélée avec le bien-être psychologique au travail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".