A longitudinal person-centered investigation of the multidimensional nature of employees’ perceptions of challenge and hindrance demands at work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This research relies on a combination of variable- and person-centered approaches to help improve our understanding of the dimensionality of job demands by jointly considering employees' global levels of job demands, exposure and their specific levels of exposure to challenge and hindrance demands. DESIGN AND METHODS: We relied on a sample of 442 workers who completed a questionnaire twice over three months. Our analyses sought to identify the nature of the job demands profiles experienced by these workers, to document the stability of these profiles over time, and to assess their associations with theoretically-relevant outcomes (i.e., work engagement, job boredom, problem-solving pondering, work-related rumination, proactive health behaviors, and sleep quality and quantity). Furthermore, we examined whether these profiles and associations differed as a function of working remotely or onsite. RESULTS: Five profiles were identified and found to be highly stable over time: Globally Exposed, Not Exposed, Not Exposed but Challenged, Exposed but Not Challenged, and Mixed. These profiles shared clear associations with all outcomes, with the most adaptive outcomes associated with the Exposed but Not Challenged profile, whereas the most detrimental ones were observed in the Mixed profile. However, none of these results differed across employees working onsite and those working remotely. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have theoretical and practical implications regarding the effects of work characteristics on employees' functioning.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".