The adverse effects of psychosocial constraints at work: A participatory study to orient prevention to mitigate psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies conducted with the JDC (job demand-control) or ERI (effort-reward imbalance) models highlight the links between constraints in the psychosocial work environment and psychological distress. However, the underlying mechanisms are not very well understood. The present participatory qualitative study explored these mechanisms with a view to identifying both the processes at work in these relationships and some targets for problem prevention. This investigation was conducted with white-collar workers from a public service organisation within one Canadian province (Quebec) who participated in six discussion groups during an intervention designed to reduce psychosocial environment constraints. The data gathered in these groups was subjected to content analysis through thematic categorization. The findings indicate that psychosocial constraints take root in situations that adversely affect subjective dimensions relating to personal and professional experience. An interpretive model is proposed on the basis of these findings, which helps to elucidate the dynamic relationships that exist among the various aspects of work experience that can lead to psychological distress. From this model, some targets for problem prevention have emerged.
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 | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".