MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130633903 · doi:10.1037/a0016847

Disentangling the indirect links between socioeconomic status and health: The dynamic roles of work stressors and personal control.

2009· article· en· W2130633903 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amy M. Christie, Julian Barling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStressorPsychosocialPsychologySocioeconomic statusFeelingStructural equation modelingSocial psychologySense of controlControl (management)Developmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Clinical psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research has documented an indirect link between socioeconomic status (SES) and health, and the goal in this study was to help unravel this phenomenon from a dynamic perspective. The authors hypothesized that SES would be positively related to feelings of personal control and negatively related to perceived work stressors. Drawing on dynamic conceptualizations of these psychosocial factors, they suggest that these psychosocial factors relate to one another over time. Individuals who have higher levels of personal control experience increasingly fewer work stressors over time than do those with lower levels of personal control, and those who experience greater work stressors increasingly perceive less personal control over time than do those with fewer work stressors. Finally, the authors argue that trajectories of personal control and work stressors are associated with the accumulation of health problems over the same period. Their model was tested with 3-wave data (over 4 years) from a nationally representative sample of Canadian employees (N = 3,419). Latent curve modeling provides support for the proposed dynamic model. Conceptual and practical implications are drawn, and suggestions for future research are outlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations95
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207