MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005139651 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3182045f2c

Low–Socioeconomic Status Workers

2011· article· en· W2005139651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey R. Harris, Yi Huang, Peggy A. Hannon, Barbara Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of Washington
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineDemographicsWagePopulationGerontologyDemographyGeographyEconomicsLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To help workplace health promotion practitioners reach low-socioeconomic status workers at high risk for chronic diseases. METHODS: We describe low-socioeconomic status workers' diseases, health status, demographics, risk behaviors, and workplaces, using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, and Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: Workers with household annual incomes less than $35,000, or a high school education or less, report more chronic diseases and lower health status. They tend to be younger, nonwhite, and have much higher levels of smoking and missed cholesterol screening. They are concentrated in the smallest and largest workplaces and in three low-wage industries that employ one-quarter of the population. CONCLUSIONS: To decrease chronic diseases among low-socioeconomic status workers, we need to focus workplace health promotion programs on workers in low-wage industries and small workplaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207