Gender, class, work‐related stress and health: toward a power‐centred approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to consider how gender, class and power have been addressed in the work stress literature and to propose an alternative approach that highlights the role of power in the development of work‐related stress. We begin with a discussion and critique of prominent work‐related stress models. The models' conceptualizations of work‐related stress and their relationships to issues of class and gender are used as focal points for discussion. We show that explanations for gender or class differences in stress vary markedly by disciplinary perspective. Some models emphasize individual coping mechanisms, while other models focus on individual‐level exposures or the work environment, in the production of work‐related stress. Notions of power or control are often invoked in these models, but they tend to be narrowly conceptualized. Often the research presents a series of empirical findings rather than an integrated conceptual model which clearly specifies the pathways by which individual work experiences are linked to health and to the broader social context. Drawing on empirical findings and theoretical insights from a broad range of disciplinary perspectives, we build a conceptual framework relating power to work‐related stress. This model can provide us with a deeper understanding of the determinants of stress, the relationships between stress and the broader social context, and the relationships between stress and social factors such as class and gender. Specifically, we suggest that power can influence work‐related stress through the distribution of stressors in the workplace and via meaning. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".