Standing, sitting and associated working conditions in the Quebec population in 1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working posture is an important determinant of musculoskeletal and vascular health. Knowledge of the context and type of postures is necessary in order to examine their associations with health-related outcomes. This study describes self-reported usual working postures in a population and their associations with other working conditions and demographic variables. The 1998 Quebec Health and Social Survey is a population-based survey of 11,986 private households in the province of Quebec. It contained a self-administered questionnaire, including an extensive occupational health section. The analyses in this study were limited to respondents with paid employment who had at least 6 months seniority in their current job, comprising 9,425 subjects. The overall prevalence of usual work in a standing posture is 58%; it is more common among men, workers under 25 years, those in the two lowest educational quintiles and those with incomes under 20,000 Canadian dollars. Only one person in six who works standing reports being able to sit at will. Women and men differ in the types of usual standing and sitting postures at work. Those who work standing and/or who work in more constrained postures are more likely to be exposed to other physical work demands, such as handling heavy loads, repetitive work, forceful exertion and low job decision latitude. The association between decision latitude and constrained postures is an important link between psychosocial and physical stressors in the workplace. In epidemiological studies, exposure covariation and interactions should be considered in the generation and interpretation of the associations between work postures and musculoskeletal disorders.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".