Theories of job stress and the role of traditional values: A longitudinal study in China.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how traditionality influences the relationships between job stressors and health. A sample of 496 Chinese employees provided longitudinal questionnaire data, and their health was assessed by collecting blood samples and monitoring blood pressure. The results indicated that the positive relationship between job control and health was stronger among the less traditional workers, whereas the positive relationship between distributive justice and health was stronger among the more traditional workers. Furthermore, traditionality moderated the interactive effects of job demands and perceived control/justice on health. Perceiving higher control mitigated the effects of job demands on upper respiratory infections among low traditionalists, but it exacerbated the effects among the high traditionalists. Perceptions of higher justice mitigated the effects of job demands on emotional exhaustion and immunoglobulin A for high traditionalists but not for low traditionalists. These results suggest that, in the relationship between job demands and psychological and physiological health, concern for equity is an important moderator for individuals with more traditional values, whereas perceived personal control is salutary for health primarily among people with less traditional values.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".