Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotional labor refers to the process by which employees are required to regulate their emotions in accordance with professionally specified requirements, rules, and guidelines. In the context of teaching, a significant portion of work is dedicated to the emotional labor of the teachers. Teaching, as a multifaceted profession, encompasses cognitive as well as emotional dimensions. Teachers consistently engage in emotional labor as an essential component of achieving pedagogical objectives and fostering positive learning outcomes. This review aimed to examine the emotional labor of elementary and high school teachers. The study was guided by four key questions: (1) What are the emotional labor levels of the teachers? (2) How do teachers engage in emotional labor in terms of surface acting and deep acting? (3) What is the relationship between naturally felt emotions and surface acting and deep acting? (4) What are the remaining gaps in the literature regarding the study of emotional labor, surface acting, and deep acting among teachers in elementary and high schools? We systematically selected ten articles relevant to our objective to confirm the components related to teachers’ emotional labor, with a specific focus on surface acting, deep acting, and naturally felt emotions in elementary and high school teachers. A comprehensive database search was conducted, in adherence to the PRISMA statement, to locate relevant studies investigating “teachers’ emotional labor” and synthesizing surface acting and deep acting. The PICOS approach was used to refine research inquiries and formulate search terms. Overall, the literature review highlights notable associations between surface acting and deep acting. However, there is no conclusive evidence that shows the correlation between deep acting and naturally felt emotions. There is considerable room for improving our understanding of emotional labor, including study methodologies, explored variables, and the recognition of historical and cultural influences that moderate and mediate the dynamics of emotional labor. This systematic review sought to delineate and consolidate existing research insights on teachers’ emotional labor.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".