MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279073295 · doi:10.1002/ajim.22577

Is the worsening of psychosocial exposures associated with mental health? Comparing two population‐based cross‐sectional studies in Spain, 2005–2010

2016· article· en· W2279073295 on OpenAlexaff
Mireia Utzet, Albert Navarro, Clara Llorens, Carles Muntañer, Salvador Moncada

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIGeneralitat de Catalunya
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineMental healthUnemploymentCross-sectional studySocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthPopulationContext (archaeology)Social supportJob strainGerontologyOccupational safety and healthWorking populationDemographyPsychiatryPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To analyze whether associations between workplace psychosocial exposures and the mental health of the working population in Spain changed between 2005 and 2010. METHODS: Two representative samples of the Spanish working population have been analyzed, 2005 (n = 5073) and 2010 (n = 3544). RESULTS: In 2010 there was a significant association between poor mental health and exposure to high Demands, low Social Support and high Insecurity over working conditions, and exposure to high Insecurity over losing the job only for men. In 2005 there was a significant association with exposure to high Demands and low Social Support. CONCLUSION: Changes in the associations between psychosocial risks and mental health may be related to the socioeconomic context marked by the rise in unemployment and the destruction of jobs as a result of the 2008 economic crisis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial MedicineSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207