The Link between Salary and Psychiatric Problems among the Industrial Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aimed to examine the effect of salary (High and low) on psychiatric problems of 200 workers of Tata Motors Ltd, Jamshedpur. These workers were divided on the basis of salary (high / low paid) and nature of job (high / low risk). Thus, there were four sub-groups and in each sub-group there were 50 cases. Methods: The Middlesex Hospital Questionnaire (M.H.Q) constructed by Crown & Crisp, (1966) and adapted in Hindi by O.N. Srivastava and V.K. Bhat in 1974 was administered on these 200 workers. Results: Results clearly indicated that salary (high and low) played a significant role in creating psychiatric problems in workers. Workers doing low paid jobs showed more psychiatric problems compared to workers doing high paid jobs in both high risk and low risk categories. The symptoms like free-floating anxiety, obsession traits and symptoms, phobic anxiety, somatic concomitants of anxiety, neurotic depression, and hysterical personality traits were found stronger in low paid in comparison to high paid industrial workers. Conclusion: Low paid job workers had significantly more psychiatric problems compared to high paid job 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".