MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027200780 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3182255dea

Examining the Impact of Worker and Workplace Factors on Prolonged Work Absences Among Canadian Nurses

2011· article· en· W2027200780 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Renée‐Louise Franche, Eleanor J. Murray, Selahadin Ibrahim, Peter Smith, Nancy Carnide, Pierre Côté, Jane Gibson, Mieke Koehoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWork (physics)Context (archaeology)Organizational cultureStructural equation modelingOccupational safety and healthPsychologyPresenteeismMoodAbsenteeismMedicineNursingClinical psychologySocial psychologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of worker and workplace factors and of their relationships on work absence duration. METHODS: Structural equation modeling of 11,762 female, Canadian nurses from the 2005 National Survey of the Work and Health of Nurses. RESULTS: Worker and workplace factors were associated with prolonged work absence. Key proximal predictors were pain-related work interference, depression, pain severity, and respect and support at work. More distal predictors were multimorbidity, abuse at work, and organizational culture. CONCLUSIONS: Worker health and workplace factors are important in explaining work absence duration. Self-management for pain and mood, adapted to the work context, may be useful for nurses with chronic pain or depression. Policy makers and administrators should focus on creating respect and support at work, and improving organizational culture.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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