Perspectives on perceived workplace age discrimination and engagement: The moderating role of emotion regulation
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
Engaging workers with their work is fundamental for employee wellbeing and performance. Perceived age discrimination in the workplace is a factor that may influence workers’ engagement. The present study aimed to analyze the moderating role of emotion regulation in the relationship between perceived age discrimination and work engagement. Survey data were collected from a sample of 453 Portuguese workers of various age groups, between 18 and 65 years-old. Four instruments were used in this study: (a) a sociodemographic questionnaire; (b) the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale (WADS); (c) the Emotion Regulation Scale and (d) the reduced version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Results show that perceived workplace age discrimination negatively impacts work engagement. Further, results suggest that emotional regulation exacerbates the negative relationship between perceived age discrimination and work engagement. The progressively aging workforce is creating challenging issues to organizations, from a human resource management perspective. Age management strategies to address perceived age discrimination and work engagement are needed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it