The moderating effect of alcohol intake on the relationship between work strains and psychological distress.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the extent to which alcohol intake modified the associations between psychological distress and work strains. METHOD: The data were obtained from a sample of 10,387 employees nested in 422 occupations. Four types of alcohol drinkers were defined according to drinker status measured by alcohol intake over the last week (1) abstainers, (2) drinkers who abstained from drinking in the last seven days, (3) low-risk drinkers (according to the Canadian guidelines), (4) high-risk drinkers. The Ilfeld scale was used to measure the level of psychological distress (referencing the last week). Work strains were measured according to Karasek's skills utilization, decision authority and psychological demands, as well as by regularity of work schedule, number of working hours per week, exposure to physical and chemical risks, job status and type of remuneration. Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted with adjustments for gender and age. RESULTS: 6.1% of the logit variance of psychological distress was between occupations. Alcohol intake showed a U-shaped relationship with psychological distress, and it was a moderator of skills utilization and exposure to physical risks. Decision authority, psychological demands, work schedule, gender and age were linked to psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate alcohol intake is not associated with psychological distress and does not intensify the effect of work strains. The results give some support to the positive effect of moderate alcohol consumption on stress reduction and mental health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".