MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019849637

Consumo de drogas y violencia laboral en mujeres trabajadoras de Monterrey, N. L., México

2005· article· es· W2019849637 on OpenAlexaff
María Magdalena Alonso Castillo, Catherine Caufield, Marco Vinicio Gómez Meza

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2005
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicStress and Burnout Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologySociologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El propósito de este estudio fue explorar el consumo de drogas y violencia laboral en una muestra de 669 mujeres mayores de edad, que trabajaban y vivían en trece Áreas Geoestadísticas Básicas de Monterrey, Nuevo León, México. Se adoptó un diseño descriptivo y correlacional con aproximación cualitativa. Los resultados revelaron que el 37.1% de las mujeres consumió alcohol, el 29.1% tabaco, el 0.4% marihuana, el 0.1% inhalables y, entre las drogas médicas, el 5% consumió tranquilizantes y el 1.0% otras sustancias (barbitúricos, antidepresivos, Tylenol/codeína). La prueba chi-cuadrada no encontró diferencia significativa de los factores sociodemográficos y laborales con el consumo de drogas (p.05), a excepción de la forma de trabajo (c2=18.08, gl=4, p=.001). Sin embargo, el índice de violencia mostró asociación positiva con el consumo de drogas (p.05). Se encontraron 126 casos que experimentaron violencia, de las cuales 34 narraron su experiencia. La percepción del consumo de drogas y violencia se identificó en 2 categorías: La Conceptualización de la Violencia Laboral y la Relación entre la Violencia y el Consumo de Drogas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicStress and Burnout ResearchFrench-language works237,207