Health status, preventive behaviour and risk factors among female nurses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compares the health status, preventive behaviour and risk factors of female nurses with those of other employed postsecondary-educated women. DATA AND METHODS; Cross-sectional data from the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounding by demographic and socio-economic characteristics. RESULTS: When confounding by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics was taken into account, nurses were more likely than other employed postsecondary-educated women to report back problems, that most work days were "quite a bit" or "extremely" stressful, and having had flu immunizations and cervical cancer screening. They were less likely to report insufficient consumption of vegetables and fruit or heavy alcohol use. INTERPRETATION: Canadian nurses' occupation may account for their higher prevalence of back problems and work stress. At the same time, their occupation may motivate flu immunization, cervical cancer screening, and vegetable and fruit consumption. Some problematic aspects of nurses' health profile are similar to those of other educated women.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".