MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W152369571

Work-related psychosocial factors and chronic pain: a prospective cohort study in Canadian workers.

2004· article· en· W152369571 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacek A. Kopec, Eric C. Sayre

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineHeadachesAffect (linguistics)Risk factorChronic painPhysical therapyPopulationMigraineFibromyalgiaLongitudinal studyBack painCohortCohort studyPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether organizational and psychosocial aspects of work experience affect the risk of chronic pain conditions. METHODS: We used longitudinal data from the National Population Health Survey in Canada (n = 6571). The data were analyzed using the Cox model. RESULTS: Work-related stress was a risk factor for developing chronic pain or discomfort. The relative risk was 1.39 (95% CI = 1.01-1.91) for medium stress and 1.80 (95% CI = 1.28-2.52) for high stress. High psychological demands and low skill discretion were independently associated with pain/discomfort. There was no association between psychosocial factors at work and physician-diagnosed chronic back problems, arthritis, or migraine headaches. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related stress is a significant risk factor for nonspecific complaints of pain or discomfort among workers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations63
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207