Job stress and other working conditions: Relationships with smoking behaviors in a representative sample of working Australians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationships between current smoking status and psychosocial working conditions. METHODS: A cross-sectional population-based telephone survey was conducted (66% response rate, N = 1,101). Job stress was measured using the demand/control, effort/reward imbalance (ERI), and job pressure models. Multiple regression modelling was conducted for smoking status (current versus non-smokers, and a more restricted analysis of current versus former-smokers) and daily smoking intensity outcomes in relation to job stress measures, working hours, shift work, and other independent variables. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, education, martial status, and hostility, high job strain was positively associated with current smoking in men only. Employment in active jobs was associated with decreased odds of smoking among women only. High strain jobs were associated with decreased odds of current smoking compared to former smoking in women. In men, extreme and moderate job pressure were related to current smoking compared to current non-smoking, and moderate job pressure was associated with current smoking compared with former smokers. Other working conditions associated with smoking were excessive working hours in men and physical demand in women. Daily smoking intensity in current smokers was associated with high psychological demand and with ERI in women. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that job stress is related to smoking status at the population level, with different patterns in men and women.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".