MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553779403 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000866

Need for Recovery as an Early Sign of Depression Risk in a Working Population

2016· article· en· W2553779403 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Karen Nieuwenhuijsen, Judith K. Sluiter, Carolyn S. Dewa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLundbeck CanadaH. Lundbeck A/SPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsDepression (economics)Odds ratioConfidence intervalLogistic regressionJob strainPopulationMedicineMajor depressive episodeOddsPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Insights into early indicators of depression in workers are needed to inform indicated depression prevention programs. This study looked at how a high Need for Recovery (NFR) is related to a higher likelihood of a depressive disorder. Second, the added value of considering NFR over traditional work-related risk factors for depression was investigated. METHODS: A cross-sectional population-based sample of 2188 Canadian workers measuring Job Strain, NFR, and Depression. Logistic regression of the risk of a depressive disorder was performed with Job Strain and NFR as predictors. RESULTS: An elevated depression risk high was associated with a high NFR [odds ratio (OR) 8.3, confidence interval (CI) 6.8 to 10.2], but not with high job strain (OR 1.0; CI 0.82 to 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: NFR may have value for indicated depression prevention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207