Longitudinal Study on the Relationship of Workspaces and Wellbeing (Case Study of a University in UK)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is extracted from an empirical longitudinal on-going project on seven academic members of a University in UK. The aim was to evaluate their work spaces and investigate potential impact on the well-being and health of the participants. The approach of this research is derived from social design and environmental psychology science. Participants were selected based on, either their expressed dissatisfaction with their work spaces or recommended by their line-manager to improve their low-quality workspaces. The average age of the participants was 46.14. This study was mainly a field study with original data collected questionnaires, interviews, environmental measures and observations (direct and indirect) during a seven months period. Different psychological measures as well as mixed methods have been used to analyze the data. For questionnaires, the standard psychological measures such as (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) HADS, and behavior questionnaires and for observation measures including ‘Mental Status Evaluation Checklist’ have been used. Two separate studies have been conducted: first, their work space has been studied for its physical environmental characteristics (from environmental factors to ergonomics) and second was the status of their well-being specifically regarding the common disorders of anxiety, depression, social phobia and agoraphobia. Results of psychological assessment shows from 7 participants 3 have anxiety in abnormal level and 2 have anxiety in borderline range. Anxiety of 4 out of 5 participants has increased during the last 7 months, and just one of the participants stayed in the same level. In case of depression just one of the participants has developed borderline depression during the study period. Regarding social phobia, one of the participants is still in the abnormal range, one is in the borderline range and the third one has improved from borderline to normal comparing to the last assessment. Just one of the participants showed higher mark in agoraphobia and the rest were all normal. Findings suggest that those who were more dissatisfied with their workspaces regardless of having an organized or disorganized office, developed higher level of anxiety or social phobia after seven months. Photographs will be used to represent the participant’s work spaces in an anonymous way because of the confidential aspects of the study. Tables, forms, and charts will demonstrate the changes in their psychological status that has happened during the 7months of the study and the relationships among different environmental factors and participant’s well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".