MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W107394683 · doi:10.3233/wor-2008-00692

Work organization and health: A qualitative study of the perceptions of workers

2008· article· en· W107394683 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcMaster UniversityHand and Upper Limb Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Focus groupQualitative researchPerceptionPsychologyWork environmentPublic relationsSociologySocial psychologyJob satisfactionBusinessMarketingPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workplaces comprise a large component of life partcipation. The complexity of work organization makes it challenging to understand how the environment impacts the health of workers and who is responsible for creating a healthy workplace. This investigation sought to understand the views of workers about workplace health. A qualitative approach was used to gain understanding of workers' experiences of how work organization (WO) impacts their health and needs to change. Four individual interviews and 7 focus groups with workers were conducted. Data were thematically analyzed. Findings comprised two common themes: 1. The need for support and respect in the work place; and 2. The need for organizational commitment to safe work practices and healthy work environments. Findings suggest workers want and need to be involved in creating a healthy workplace. Opportunities to involve workers more in workplace health are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.349 · 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