Work organization and its effects on the health of Chinese workers with English as a second language: A qualitative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work organization consists of three contexts: (a) the external context/factors, (b) the organizational context/practices, and, (c) the work context/process. The investigation of work organization may lead to more effective prevention and intervention for work-related injury and illness. Studies have suggested that workers with limited English proficiency may be more prone to work-related injury and illness. The purposes of this qualitative phenomenological study were to gain a better understanding of the meaning of work organization to Chinese workers with English as a second language (ESL) and to explore their lived experiences on how work organization affects their health. Ten in-depth face to face interviews were conducted with Chinese ESL workers (5 males and 5 females; ages ranged from 22 to 41 years) who were employed in English-speaking workplaces in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada. Interviews were translated and transcribed before importing them into NUD*IST, a qualitative data management software program. The transcripts were then coded, and categories were developed based on the codes. Subsequently, eight themes were identified from the categories. Work organization was perceived by Chinese ESL workers to be at an impersonal and distant level. Workers also identified work organization related issues (i.e., employers' priority, communication, work culture, job autonomy, recognition, and individual characteristics) as factors affecting their health at workplaces. However, these workers commonly expressed resignation towards their own health. Workplaces, especially those with Chinese ESL workers, need to place greater emphasis on implementing effective health and safety approaches to maximize the health of these 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".