Psychosocial Factors At Work, Smoking, Sedentary Behavior, and Body Mass Index:
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional study examined whether psychosocial factors at work were associated with smoking, sedentary behavior, and body mass index. The study population was composed of 3531 men and 3464 women employed as white collar workers in 21 organizations. Data were collected at worksites. Psychological demands and decision latitude at work were measured with the Karasek 18-item questionnaire. Smoking, sedentary behavior, and mean body mass index were compared by quartiles of decision latitude and psychological demands and by job strain categories. Prevalence of smoking, mean number of cigarettes smoked per day, prevalence of sedentary behavior, and mean body mass index were not consistently associated with decision latitude, psychological demands, or high job strain. However, prevalence of smoking was elevated in women belonging to the highest quartile of psychological demands (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 1.6) and in the active job strain groups in both men (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.1) and women (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.0). Prevalence of sedentary behavior was elevated in men in the lowest quartile of decision latitude (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.7), in the passive group (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5), and in the high strain group (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). In women, this prevalence was elevated in the third quartile of psychological demand (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6). These results provide only partial support for an association between some psychosocial factors at work and the prevalence of smoking and sedentary behavior.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it