MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408116726 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v16n1p74

The Anxious Generation Theory and Generation Z Behaviour in the Workplace: A Correlation Analysis

2025· article· en· W4408116726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henrique de Castro Neves

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGenerational Differences and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrelationPsychologyEconometricsGeneration yComputer scienceOperations managementEconomicsMarketingBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the intersection between Jonathan Haidt's Anxious Generation Theory and Generation Z’s behaviours in the workplace, offering a comprehensive analysis of how overprotective parenting, social media influence, and safetyism shape the professional identity and expectations of this generation. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research examines workplace behaviours, organisational dynamics, and adaptation strategies. Findings reveal that Generation Z prioritises mental health, inclusivity, and purpose-driven work environments, often accompanied by risk aversion and a preference for frequent feedback. These traits influence leadership styles, team collaboration, and policy development. While presenting challenges, such as heightened turnover rates and dependence on validation, Generation Z also offers opportunities for innovation and cultural transformation. This study concludes with actionable strategies for organisations to align with Generation Z’s values while maintaining productivity and adaptability, contributing to a deeper understanding of integrating this emerging workforce into global organisational contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicGenerational Differences and TrendsFrench-language works237,207