Survey on Pressure Situation of Professional Women and Causes Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;" lang="EN-US">With the development of society and the rise of women's status, professional women become non-ignorable in the workplace. The development of professional women also results in all kinds of pressure. Through the survey of the status of professional women's occupational pressure, this paper aims to analyze the differences of the total pressure in age, disposition, education, marital status, type of work and demographics, so as to explore the main factors; besides, this paper will also study the coping situation and discuss the relationship between the way of release and occupational pressure. Hope to conduct a more in-depth study of professional women's stress from wider angles in all around, providing a scientific basis for most professional women to adjust the physical and mental state, relieve stress, avoid the negative effects of burnout and improve work efficiency. This research has adopted cluster sampling method, surveyed by way of questionnaire, and discussed the status and influencing factors of women's occupational stress. The investigation on the influencing factors and countermeasures of female occupational stress could provide a more effective way of pressure relief for the majority of women, improve their work efficiency and better serve society! Therefore, it becomes an important topic to study the stress of professional women.</span>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".