MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099406625 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n3p274

Quality of Life Among Thai Workers in Textile Dyeing Factories

2014· article· en· W2099406625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wirin Kittipichai, Rattanaporn Arsa, Ann Jirapongsuwan, Chatchawal Singhakant

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Public Health, Mahidol UniversityMahidol UniversityChina Medical Board
KeywordsMarital statusEnvironmental healthQuality of life (healthcare)TextileQuality (philosophy)MedicinePsychologyNursingGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of a cross-sectional study was to investigate factors influencing the quality of life among Thai workers in textile dyeing factories. Samples included 205 Thai workers from five textile dyeing factories located in the suburban area of Bangkok in Thailand. Data were collected with a self-administered questionnaire. Scales of the questionnaire had reliability coefficients ranging from 0.70-0.91. The results revealed that the overall quality of life among workers was most likely between good and moderate levels, and the percentage-mean score was 74.77. The seven factors associated with the overall quality of life were co-worker relationships, safety at work in the dimension of accident prevention, job characteristics, supervisory relationships, welfares, marital status, and physical environment. Furthermore, co-worker relationships, accident prevention, and marital status were three considerable predictors accounted for 23% of the variance in the overall quality of life among workers in textile dyeing factories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207