El trabajo emocional en profesionales de la educación: una revisión exploratoria de literatura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among educational population, recent studies have documented the presence of emotional labor as a factor with dual effects on well-being, mental health and job performance. This study is a scoping review of articles published in English language between 2019 and 2024 about emotional labor performed by various educational roles. The aim is to identify current topics and findings, the approaches and designs used, the representation of populations and geographic areas, and future research directions. The analysis included 58 empirical studies sourced from Scopus and WoS. The geographic distribution of publications was concentrated in China (52%), Türkiye (10%) and Canada (5%), while the remainder was dispersed. Most of the studies employed a quantitative cross-sectional design and relied on self-reported questionnaires. Secondary school teachers emerged as the most studied population, with five thematic categories dominating the research landscape: 1) job effectiveness and emotions, 2) engagement and organizational commitment, 3) well-being, emotional regulation and burnout, 4) job satisfaction and organizational climate and 5) professional identity. The findings highlight a lack of clear guidelines on emotional labor in educational settings, which hinders the ability to benefit from deep acting and genuine acting strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".