MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395045706 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1298001

The cost of protecting resources: a cross-sectional study on the interaction between LMX and role ambiguity on work addiction and burnout among Canadian first-level healthcare managers

2024· article· en· W4395045706 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Francis Maisonneuve, Patrick Groulx, Anaïs Galy, Denis Chênevert, Michel Cossette

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHEC Montréal
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsBurnoutPsychologyAmbiguityContext (archaeology)Health careAddictionModerationWork engagementRole conflictSocial psychologyWork (physics)Applied psychologyClinical psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Using the conservation of resources (COR) theory, our study explores the interaction between role ambiguity and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality on burnout using work addiction as a mediator among Canadian first-level healthcare managers. Methods: Cross-sectional data was collected among 165 first-level managers working in healthcare with the support of interprofessional associations in Canada. Linear regression was used to test the presented hypotheses. Results: Work addiction fully mediated the positive relationship between role ambiguity and burnout among first-level managers. In addition, high LMX exacerbated both the direct and indirect effects of role ambiguity. Conclusion: Our study contributes by identifying role ambiguity as a context under which LMX can have adverse effects for first-level managers in healthcare. Moreover, work addiction acted as a mediator, theorized as a risky resource investment which depletes managers' resources. Having a good relationship with their team further entices managers to develop a pathological relationship with their work to protect its members, which in turn is related to higher levels of burnout.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicWorkaholism, burnout, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207