MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392639987 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4751277

Incorporating Sex and Gender Considerations in Research on Psychosocial Work Exposures and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Umbrella Review of 55 Prospective Studies on Demand-Control Model, Effort-Reward Imbalance Model, and Long Work Hours

2024· preprint· en· W4392639987 on OpenAlexaff
Azita Zahiri Harsini, Mahée Gilbert‐Ouimet, Valérie Hervieux, Xavier Trudel, Léonie Matteau, Laura Jalbert, Olha Svyntozelska, Juliette Demers, Annie LeBlanc, Peter Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialWork (physics)GerontologyPsychologyControl (management)MedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207