MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Job strain and sickness absence among nurses in the province of Qu�bec

2001· article· en· W1964849128 on OpenAlexaff
Ren�e Bourbonnais, Myrto Mondor

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSick leaveJob strainMedicineSocial supportJob stressFamily medicineJob satisfactionPsychiatryPsychologyPhysical therapySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Using Karasek's job strain model, the objective of the study was to determine whether nurses exposed to job strain had a higher incidence of sick leave than nurses not exposed. METHODS: The design was longitudinal. Data on sick leave were collected for 1,793 nurses for a 20-month period: short-term leaves and certified sick leaves. The Job Content Questionnaire was used to measure psychological demands, job decision latitude, and social support at work. RESULTS: Short-term sick leaves were associated with job strain (incidence density ratio (IDR) = 1.20) and with low social support at work (IDR = 1.26). Certified sick leaves were also significantly associated with low social support at work (IDR = 1.27 for all diagnoses and IDR = 1.78 for mental health diagnoses). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the association between job strain and short-term sick leaves. The association with certified sick leaves is also significant for subgroups of nurses with specific job characteristics. Social support at work, although associated with all types of sick leaves measured, does not modify the association between job strain and absence.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations149
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207