MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150203675

Weekly work hours and health-related behaviours in full-time students.

2005· article· en· W2150203675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gisèle Carrière

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOddsConfoundingLogistic regressionResidenceOdds ratioDemographyMedicineEnvironmental healthWorking hoursGerontologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article examines associations between the number of hours of paid work and smoking, alcohol use, episodic heavy drinking and leisure-time physical activity among full-time students aged 15 to 17. DATA SOURCES: Analyses are based on data from the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey and the 1994/95 to 2002/03 National Population Health Survey. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Selected characteristics and health-related behaviours of working and non-working students were compared. Logistic regression was used to examine relationships between average weekly hours at the main job and health-related behaviours, as well as maintenance of and changes in these behaviours, while controlling for possible confounders. MAIN RESULTS: Students who worked even a modest number of hours per week had higher odds of drinking alcohol regularly, and occasionally heavily, compared with those who had not worked. Students working any number of hours had higher odds of becoming regular drinkers within two years of their baseline interview. Longer working hours were associated with higher odds of smoking. Employed students had higher odds of being physically active in their leisure time. The influences of age, household income and urban/rural residence were taken into account.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207