Correlates of Employees' Perceptions of a Healthy Work Environment
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
Purpose. This study analyzed correlates of workers' perceptions of the extent to which their work environment is healthy and how these perceptions influence job satisfaction, employee commitment, workplace morale, absenteeism, and intent to quit. Design. One-time cross-sectional telephone survey. Setting. Canadian employees in 2000. Subjects. A randomly chosen, nationally representative sample of 2500 employed respondents, using a household sampling frame. The response rate was 39.2%. Self-employed individuals were excluded, leaving a subsample of 2112 respondents. Measures. The dependent variable was the response to the item, “The work environment is healthy” (5-point strongly agree–strongly disagree Likert scale). Independent variables used in bivariate and ordinary least-squares regression analyses included sociodemographic characteristics, employment status, organizational characteristics, and scales that measured job demands, intrinsic rewards, extrinsic rewards, communication/social support, employee influence, and job resources. Perceptions of a healthy work environment were related to job satisfaction, commitment, morale (measured on a 5-point scale), number of self-reported absenteeism days in the past 12 months, and whether or not the respondent had looked for a job with another employer in the past 12 months. Results. The strongest correlate of a healthy work environment was a scale of good communication and social support (beta = .27). The next strongest was a job demands scale (beta = –.15.) Employees in self-rated healthier work environments had significantly ( p < 0.01) higher job satisfaction, commitment and morale, and lower absenteeism and intent to quit. Conclusions. The study supports a comprehensive model of workplace health that targets working conditions, work relationships, and workplace organization for health promotion interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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