A glossary for the social epidemiology of work organisation: Part 1, Terms from social psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work is the means by which most human beings provide for their daily sustenance. Although many theorists suggest that work occupies a central place in human life, more recently some have questioned the centrality of work, arguing that we are now in a postindustrial, consumer-oriented society where consumption has replaced work as a source of health and disease in our societies.1,2 Nevertheless, even in wealthy countries most adults still spend most of their waking hours engaged in work. People work in or out of their homes, with or without labour contracts, and in safe or hazardous working conditions. These and other features of work organisation have a great effect on workers’ health.3 Furthermore, work exists in a historical context, deeply influenced by several institutions and social relationships. Concepts used in the epidemiology of work organisation have been drawn from diverse disciplines, as researchers have pragmatically adapted concepts from adjacent disciplines such as sociology or psychology. Although this pragmatic approach has produced a strong body of empirical evidence, it has left us with concepts that are nearly impossible to integrate into a broad theoretical framework. Therefore, this glossary does not exist within any overarching theoretical framework. Instead, we have chosen to split the content into three parts, according to each term’s origin in the social sciences. Terms appear under one of three headings: Social Psychology, the Sociology of Work and Organisations and the Sociology of Labour Markets. Our criteria for selecting and including terms in the glossary include both objective and subjective components. Substantial effort has been devoted to refining terms that are often used in Medline references but which, nonetheless, remain ambiguous or undefined (see terms under Social Psychology). We have also tackled areas in need of conceptual clarity (see terms under the Sociology of Work and …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".