Work stress models and diurnal cortisol variations: The SALVEO study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess components, subscales, and interactions proposed by the popular Job Demand-Control (JDC), Job Demand-Control-Support (JDCS), and Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) work stress models in relation to diurnal variation of the stress hormone cortisol. Participants included 401 day-shift workers employed from a random sampling of 34 Canadian workplaces. Questionnaires included the Job Content Questionnaire to measure psychological demands, decision latitude, and social support as well as the Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire to measure effort, reward, and overcommitment. Salivary cortisol was collected on 2 working days at awaking, +30 min after awaking, 1400h, 1600h, and bedtime. Multilevel regressions with 3 levels (time of day, workers, workplaces) were performed. Results revealed that JDC, JDCS and ERI interactions were not statistically associated with variations in diurnal cortisol concentrations. By contrast when assessing specific work stress subscales, increased psychological demands were linked to decreased bedtime cortisol, increased job recognition was linked to increased cortisol +30 min after waking and at bedtime, and finally increased overcommitment was linked to increased awakening cortisol and decreased cortisol at 1400h, 1600h, and bedtime. Sex moderation effects principally among men were additionally detected for psychological demands, total social support, and supervisor support. Our findings suggest that components and subsubscales of these popular work stress models rather than theorized interactions are more meaningful in explaining diurnal cortisol variations. In particular, psychological demands, job recognition, overcommitment, and to a lesser extent social support at work are the most significant predictors of diurnal cortisol variation in this large sample of Canadian workers. Importantly, the overall effect sizes of these subscales that explained diurnal cortisol concentrations were weak.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".