Occupational Psychosocial Hazards Among the Emerging US Green Collar Workforce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare occupational psychosocial hazards in green collar versus non-green collar workers. METHODS: Standard Occupational Classification codes were used to link the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to the 2010 Occupational Information Network Database. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to predict job insecurity, work life imbalance, and workplace harassment in green versus non-green collar workers. RESULTS: Most participants were white, non-Hispanic, 25 to 64 years of age, and obtained greater than a high school education. The majority of workers reported no job insecurity, work life imbalance, or workplace harassment. Relative to non-green collar workers (n = 12,217), green collar workers (n = 2,588) were more likely to report job insecurity (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 1.26) and work life imbalance (1.19; 1.05 to 1.35), but less likely to experience workplace harassment (0.77; 0.62 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous surveillance of occupational psychosocial hazards is recommended in this rapidly emerging workforce.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".