Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate muscle pains of emotional laborers and determine whether there were differences in their muscle pains depending on the hours spent on emotional labor. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of the data collected from the 3rd (2011) Korean Working Conditions Survey. 50,032 participants responded to the study's questionnaire. Among them, 15,669 participants were emotional laborers who directly dealt with people such as customers, passengers, pupils, patients, etc. Results: Thirty three percent of subjects had reported muscle pains. Muscle pains of subjects were positively related to the hours spent on emotional labor (p<.001). According to the logistic regression analysis, the adjusted odd ratio of the subjects who spent about almost all of the work hours on emotional labor was 1.32 (95% CI: 1.15~1.52), compared to the subjects who spent about a quarter of their work hours on emotional labor, when other factors were controlled. Conclusion: The study's findings indicate that engaging in emotional labor for longer hours increases the risks of muscle pains. Occupational nurses must pay closer attention to the management of muscle pains of emotional laborers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".