Perceived impact of rotating shift work on health and wellbeing among underground workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers in the mining industry are exposed to several risks and hazards in the \nunderground environment. Shift work is a common working arrangement in the mining industry \nand is associated with many adverse health outcomes. In Canada, there is limited research \nbetween rotating shift work in the minerals industry and the effects on health and wellbeing of \nworkers, especially utilizing a qualitative design. This thesis aimed to understand the impact of \nrotating shift work on perceived health and wellbeing among some underground workers in \nSudbury, Ontario. \nThis qualitative descriptive study utilized individual, semistructured interviews with a \nsample of underground workers (n = 12) employed in Sudbury, Ontario. Interviews were \ndigitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s 2006 version of \nthematic analysis. Participants in this study perceived both advantages and disadvantages of \nworking on a rotating shift schedule in relation to their health and wellbeing. Final themes that \nemerged from the data included: strong preference for the night shift, challenges associated with \nimpact on personal wellbeing, advantages and disadvantages on work environment wellbeing, \nbenefits and challenges of wellbeing external to work, strategies for coping with shift work, \nfamily advantages, challenges with partner relationships, challenges and opportunities in \nrelationships with children, and strategies used to protect family wellbeing. The findings of this \nstudy may influence future research studies using a quantitative or mixed-method design, and \nlarger samples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".