P1-364 Is social capital in the workplace associated with work-related injury and disability? A systematic review of the epidemiologic literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Social capital is defined as resources embedded in social relationships. Social capital in the workplace may include social support, interpersonal trust, respect, and reciprocity; and may occur at both the worker and workplace level. The objective of this study was to determine if social capital in the workplace is associated with work-related injury or disability. Methods A systematic review of the epidemiologic literature was conducted. Studies were identified from 1990 to 2008 relevant to social capital in the workplace and work-related injury or disability. Identified studies were critically appraised for methodological quality by two qualified independent reviewers. Findings represent a best evidence synthesis of the literature. Results Sixty-six studies were scientifically reviewed. Forty-two were excluded due to poor methodological quality. The remaining 24 consisted of 14 studies examining the association between social capital in the workplace and work-related injury, eight focused on disability, and two studied both injury and disability. Only two studies included workplace-level social capital, the remaining focused on individual-level worker social capital. Limitations of the literature include unclear social capital, injury and disability definitions, limited study populations, and weak study designs. Conclusions Limitations preclude stating consistent conclusions. The evidence suggests an association between individual worker social capital and work disability. Group-level social capital may be important in the development of work-related injury and disability. We summarised the literature, highlighted its strengths and weaknesses, and provided suggestions for future work.
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 | 0.018 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".