Occupational stress in Canadian universities: A national survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vic Catano and Lori FrancisSaint Marys UniversityTed Haines, Haresh Kirpalani, Harry Shannon, and Bernadette StringerMcMaster UniversityLaura LozanzkiCanadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa, ON, CanadaStress surveys in U.K. and Australian universities demonstrated high occu-pational stress levels among faculty. This study investigated whether the sameoccupational stressors and stress outcomes applied at Canadian universities. Ran-domly selected staff ( n 1440) from 56 universities completed a Web-basedquestionnaire. The response rate 27%, was similar to those in the U.K. and Austra-lian studies, as were most of the results. With respect to strain, 13% of the respon-dents reported high psychological distress and 22% reported elevated physicalhealth symptoms. Less secure employment status and work-life imbalance stronglypredicted job dissatisfaction; work-life imbalance strongly predicted increased psy-chological distress. Overall study participants were satis ed with their jobs andemotionally committed to their institutions. These results warrant consideration ofcontemporary academic work by both academic staff associations and universityadministrations with respect to the implementation of changes in policies andprocedures that might lead to reductions in work-related stress and strain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".