MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112020746

Exploring the relationship between remote e-working and work-related well-being.

2017· article· en· W7112020746 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePure (Coventry University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisSample (material)Scale (ratio)Work (physics)Qualitative researchData collectionThematic map
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote e-working refers to work conducted at anyplace and anytime and enabled by ICTs. This qualitative study aims to explore how remote e-working may influence five dimensions of work-related well-being (i.e., affective, social, cognitive, psychosomatic, and professional). A semi-structured interview method was employed on a sample of thirty-nine e-workers (22 female, Mage= 46.86) working for a UK software development company. Thematic analysis identified five common themes (e.g., exercise, eating habits and associated-health outcomes). Preliminary findings expand our theoretical knowledge suggesting that remote e-working relates to each of well-being dimensions. Practical implication is the development of a new scale measuring e-well-being.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure (Coventry University)Same topicTechnostress in Professional SettingsFrench-language works237,207