Race, Marginalization, and Perceptions of Stress Among Workers Worldwide Post‐2020
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that stressful workplace changes in 2020 disproportionately impacted historically marginalized workers. However, we need more information on enduring inequalities of stress post‐2020. Thus, drawing from surveys with employees working in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and India ( N = 5,242), we use logistic regression to explore how worker identities (race/ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, and social class) might matter for stress as measured through respondents' self‐assessments of their own feelings of stress (“helplessness”) and states counter to stress (“self‐efficacy”). Taking a sociological approach to analyze worker responses to the perceived stress scale (PSS‐10), we found that historically marginalized workers (in terms of race, gender, sexual identity, and social class) reported greater feelings of stress (helplessness). However, we also found that employees identifying as racially minoritized at work and employees in India reported high self‐efficacy scores on the PSS‐10—a surprising relationship given that feelings of self‐efficacy have been previously theorized to have an inverse relationship with stress (helplessness). Though based on a convenience sample, our research suggests that historically marginalized workers worldwide are feeling more significant amounts of stress. In addition, our findings may have implications regarding how researchers use the PSS‐10 to measure stress across diverse worker groups and international contexts.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it