MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143373321 · doi:10.1037/h0087259

Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far.

2005· article· en· W2143373321 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyApplied psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.254 · 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