Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far.
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
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 2005, 37:4, 223-235 When asked to define the capabilities of a healthy person, Sigmund Freud responded “To work and to love.” Although many of his theses have not held up to empirical enquiry, Freud’s identification of an intimate connection between work and mental health is consistent with a vast body of scientific literature. Certainly, the historical record identifies paid employment as a central aspect of human experience throughout the development of civilization (see for example, Applebaum, 1984, 1992; Pahl, 1989). Moreover, the absence of paid employment has been linked to deleterious consequences for individuals and society since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Burnett, 1994; Feather, 1990; Jahoda, 1980). In the latter half of this century, Kornhauser ’s (1965) inquiries into the mental health of factory workers, and the seminal report Work in America (1973) focused attention on issues related to work stress and their implications for individual and organizational health. In 1990, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the United States declared occupational stress to be one of the 10 leading causes of workplace death (Sauter, Murphy, & Hurrell, 1990), and it is now common to speak of occupational stress as an epidemic (Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997). Developing healthy work and workplaces has become an important topic for organizations and researchers alike. Several initiatives toward developing healthy workplaces have been undertaken by the American Psychological Association (e.g., which offers state, provincial, and international Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards) and the National Quality Institute (NQI; e.g., which offers a national award program, and which organizes the Nationally Healthy Workplace Week). Similarly, the Canadian Institute of Health Research currently is preparing a research strategy on workplace mental health. Therefore, the intent of this Special Issue is to highlight the contributions that psychological research has made, and will continue to make, to strategies surrounding healthy workplaces. By way of introduction to this Special Issue of the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, we hope to achieve three interrelated goals. First, we define what we mean by a “healthy workplace,” and we delineate the ways in which work is associated with mental health. We argue that work is both a causal factor in mental and physical ill-health as well as a potential health resource that both may protect us and assist in our recovery from psychological ill-health. Second, we review the individual, organizational, and societal costs of unhealthy work and workplaces, and, consequently, of poor mental and physical health. Our argument is simply that we are incurring horrific economic and social costs when we have unhealthy workplaces. Finally, we provide a framework in terms of a healthy workplace model to help summarize this literature, and to present the articles in this Special Issue. Throughout this introduction, we emphasize that these goals are highly compatible with organizations’ traditional focus on enhancing productivity and profitability. Put simply, what is good for Canadian workers is good for Canadian industry.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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