Human Resources Management Development Regarding Work-Related Flow in Contrast to Either Happiness or PERMA Factors for Career Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human resources management (HRM) development aims at career sustainability. Work-related flow, as originated and defined by Csikszentmihalyi, is a process experienced by those optimally challenged by their work, considered the optimal work-related experience. Happiness is a judgment-dependent state of a pleased satisfaction with one’s current experience that one hopes will continue. PERMA (Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) represents five measurable factors of positive psychology that constitute well-being. As the optimal work-related experience, flow determines career sustainability compared with either happiness or PERMA factors. HRM development programs focused on happiness or PERMA factors thus represents risk factors regarding an inability to develop career sustainability. Established from this publisher’s founding ongoing concern with sustainability, articles published in MDPI journals with the keywords “flow, Csikszentmihalyi, work” were searched, excluding those pertaining to education, health, leisure, marketing, non-workers, and spirituality. Of 628 results returned, 28 reports were included for potential assessment. Although current studies on flow represented only three, the results regarding flow position it as the best indicator of career sustainability, contrasted to either happiness or PERMA. Consequently, HRM is advised to concentrate on developing practices for assessing and encouraging employees’ engagement with work-related flow in its aim of career sustainability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".