MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118379213 · doi:10.2466/pr0.100.2.525-530

Effort-Reward Imbalance, Overcommitment, and Psychological Distress in Canadian Police Officers

2007· article· en· W2118379213 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bonnie Janzen, Nazeem Muhajarine, Tong Zhu, I. W. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMarital statusPsychological distressSample (material)Mental healthDistressClinical psychologySocial psychologyDemographyPsychiatryPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship among Effort, Reward, and Overcommitment dimensions of Siegrist's Effort-Reward Imbalance Model and Psychological Distress in a sample of 78 Canadian police officers. Ages of respondents ranged between 24 and 56 years (M=36.1, SD=8.0). 30% of respondents had been in policing for 16 years or more, 24% between 6 and 15 years, and 44% for 5 years or less. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to evaluate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. After adjusting for age, sex, education, and marital status, higher levels of Effort-Reward Imbalance and Overcommitment were associated with greater Psychological Distress. Present findings support the utility of the model in this particular occupational group and add to the increasing literature suggesting association of Effort-Reward Imbalance, Overcommitment, and reduced 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207