Nature, Predictors, and Outcomes of Workers’ Longitudinal Workaholism 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
This research relies on a combination of variable- and person-centered approaches to help improve our understanding of the dimensionality of the workaholism construct. Our results showed that employees’ workaholism ratings simultaneously reflected a global overarching construct co-existing with four specific dimensions (behavioral, motivational, emotional, and cognitive workaholism) among a sample of 432 workers who completed a questionnaire twice over a three-month period. We also examined the profiles taken by workaholism dimensions, and documented their stability over time as well as the associations between these profiles and theoretically-relevant predictors and outcomes. Furthermore, we examined whether these associations differ as a function of working remotely or onsite. Four profiles were identified and found to be highly stable over time: Unplugged , Plugged In , Moderately Unplugged with Externalized Workaholism , and Moderately Unplugged with Cognitive Workaholism . Personal life orientation, telepressure, and interpersonal norms regarding work-related messages were related to the likelihood of profile membership. Remote working also reinforced the positive effects of personal life orientation and the negative effects of interpersonal norms regarding work-related messages. Finally, employees’ work-to-family guilt, job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction also differed as a function of their profile.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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