MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913737123 · doi:10.1590/0102-311x00176912

Síntomas depresivos y distrés laboral en trabajadores chilenos: condiciones diferenciales para hombres y mujeres

2014· article· es· W1913737123 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCadernos de Saúde Pública · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicStress and Burnout Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialDepressive symptomsLogistic regressionDepression (economics)Risk factorCross-sectional studyOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article assessed depressive symptoms associated with work-related psychosocial risk factors according to gender in Chile, using the demand-control model (Karasek) and effort-reward imbalance (Siegrist). A cross-sectional study was conducted in a random sample of 3,010 workers (35% female and 65% male) from the country. Data analysis determined prevalence and associations through various statistical techniques (χ2, logistic regression). Exposure to psychosocial risk factors at work and prevalence of depressive symptoms were higher in women than men (15% vs. 5%). The adjusted analysis highlighted that female workers exposed to Isostrain (OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.42-3.85) and low rewards (OR = 2.13; 95%CI: 1.41-3.21) and male workers exposed to psychological demands (OR = 3.04; 95%CI: 1.94-4.76) and effort-reward imbalance (OR = 2.19; 95%CI: 1.39-3.46) had increased risk of depressive symptoms. Exposure to work-related psychosocial risk factors was associated with depressive symptoms in Chilean workers. Effective prevention in key aspects of work organization is thus needed.

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)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCadernos de Saúde PúblicaSame topicStress and Burnout ResearchFrench-language works237,207