Measuring psychosocial job strain with the job content questionnaire using experienced job evaluators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A union/management system of job evaluation has been in place in the British Columbia (BC) sawmill industry since the late 1960s. This system uses an instrument, very similar to the job content questionnaire (JCQ) to evaluate psychosocial work conditions for sawmill jobs. METHODS: Four experienced evaluators, one from the union and three from industry, independently estimated psychosocial work conditions for 54 current job titles in a "typical" coastal sawmill using a shortened, 18-question version of the JCQ questionnaire. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for control but not for co-worker social support, physical demand, or psychological demand. Reliability was least for psychological demand. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced job evaluators in the sawmill industry were able to reliably estimate only the control dimension of the JCQ. The observed lowest reliability for psychological job demand may be due to the imprecise construct definition in the domain of the JCQ instrument.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".