Effets du harcèlement psychologique au travail sur la satisfaction de vie professionnelle et hors travail : le rôle des motivations à garder le silence et du bris du contrat psychologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cette étude transversale vise à mieux comprendre le rôle modérateur des motivations à garder le silence et le rôle médiateur du contrat psychologique dans la relation entre le harcèlement psychologique au travail et la satisfaction de vie (professionnelle et hors travail). Les résultats montrent que le harcèlement psychologique est associé négativement avec les deux types de satisfaction et que le contrat psychologique joue un rôle médiateur dans la relation entre le harcèlement psychologique et la satisfaction de vie professionnelle. Les motivations à garder le silence en lien avec la situation et le climat modèrent la relation entre le harcèlement et le contrat psychologique : le harcèlement prédit négativement le contrat psychologique lorsque ces motivations à garder le silence sont élevées (ainsi que moyennes dans le cas des motivations situationnelles). Abstract This cross-sectional study aims to better understand the moderating role of motivations to remain silent and the mediating role of the psychological contract in the relationship between bullying at work and satisfaction (both job and life satisfaction). The results show that bullying is negatively associated with both types of satisfaction, but that the psychological contract does not play a mediating role in this relationship. Motivations to remain silent related to the situation and climate moderate the relationship between bullying and the psychological contract, whereby bullying negatively predicts the psychological contract when these motivations to remain silent are high.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".