MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519190863 · doi:10.4000/travailemploi.6295

Evaluating the Burden of Job Stress From the Public-Health and Economic Viewpoints:

2013· article· en· W1519190863 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hélène Sultan‐Taïeb, Isabelle Niedhammer

Bibliographic record

VenueTravail et emploi · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de BourgogneInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsEpidemiologyPublic healthExposition (narrative)Welfare economicsMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of the burden of job stress on both the number of cases of diseases (morbidity and mortality) and the resulting economic costs are key questions in public health. However, work in this area remains only very sparse. We here underline the importance of such a calculation, and briefly present a feasible estimation method (that of attributable fractions) and its limitations. This method uses epidemiological data on the relative risk of disease associated with a given job stress risk factor, and the prevalence of exposure to this factor. The associated difficulties revolve around the need for robust and consistent epidemiological data from prospective large-sample etiological studies. The resulting estimates of the evaluation of the burden of job stress provide useful information for decision-making regarding the allocation of resources for prevention purposes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTravail et emploiSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207