MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146988444 · doi:10.1179/oeh.2007.13.3.268

A Systematic Review of the Job-stress Intervention Evaluation Literature, 1990–2005

2007· review· en· W2146988444 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Job stressPsychologySystematic reviewApplied psychologyJob performanceOccupational stressStress (linguistics)Clinical psychologyMEDLINESocial psychologyJob satisfactionPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ninety reports of systematic evaluations of job-stress interventions were rated in terms of the degree of systems approach used. A high rating was defined as both organizationally and individually focused, versus moderate (organizational only), and low (individual only). Studies using high-rated approaches represent a growing proportion of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature. Individual-focused, low-rated approaches are effective at the individual level, favorably affecting individual-level outcomes, but tend not to have favorable impacts at the organizational level. Organizationally-focused high- and moderate-rated approaches are beneficial at both individual and organizational levels. Further measures are needed to foster the dissemination and implementation of systems approaches to examining interventions for job stress.

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)0.007
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.415 · 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