MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4295367266 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v14n10p1

The Effects of Workplace Discrimination on Job Stress and Depression Among Nurses: A Test of Mediation

2022· article· en· W4295367266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rahim Mosahab, Arya Mosahab

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob stressDepression (economics)MediationBachelorPsychologyStress (linguistics)Cross-sectional studyMedicineClinical psychologyNursingJob satisfactionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was intended to examine the effect of discrimination on the development of job stress and depression, and the mediating role of job stress between workplace discrimination and depression among nurses in hospitals in Iran. The sample comprised 166 nurses holding a bachelor’s degree or higher and working in hospitals located in the districts of 5 and 17 of Tehran, the capital city of Iran, which are usually inhabited by economically middle- and low-income people respectively. A random sampling technique was employed based on a cross-sectional design. This study revealed that workplace discrimination was positively correlated with job stress (β = .178, p = .000) and depression (β = .142, p = .002). Job stress was positively correlated with depression (β = .253 and p = .000). The study analysis revealed that job stress partially mediated the relationship between workplace discrimination and depression among nursing professionals. The study suggests that workplace discrimination can be considered a predictor of negative health outcomes and nurses may be vulnerable to job stress, resulting in depression.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→