MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018319411 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e318188e882

Examining Associations Between Job Characteristics and Health: Linking Data From the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) to Two U.S. National Health Surveys

2008· article· en· W2018319411 on OpenAlexaff
Toni Alterman, James W. Grosch, Xiao Chen, David Chrislip, Martin R. Petersen, Edward F. Krieg, Haejoo Chung, Carles Muntañer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionNational Health Interview SurveyOccupational safety and healthProxy (statistics)GerontologyMedicinePsychologyPopulationStatisticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database can be used to identify job dimensions to serve as proxy measures for psychosocial factors and select environmental factors, and to determine whether these factors could be linked to national health surveys to examine associations with health risk behaviors and outcomes. METHODS: Job characteristics were obtained from O*NET 98. Health outcomes were obtained from two national surveys. Data were linked using Bureau of Census codes. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine associations between O*NET factors and cardiovascular disease, depression, and health risk factors. RESULTS: Seven of nine work organization or psychosocial factors were significantly associated with health risk behaviors in both the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III and National Health Interview Survey. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a method for linking independently obtained health and job characteristic data based on occupational code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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