Does recall bias explain the association of mood disorders with workplace harassment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the contribution of recall bias to the observed excess in mental ill-health in those reporting harassment at work. Methods: A prospective cohort of 1885 workers in welding and electrical trades was contacted every six months for up to 5 years, asking whether they were currently anxious or depressed and whether this was made worse by work. Only at the end of the study did we ask about any workplace harassment they had experienced at work. We elicited sensitivity and specificity of self-reported bullying from published reliability studies and formulated priors that reflect the possibility of over-reporting of workplace harassment (exposure) by those whose anxiety or depression was reported to be made worse by work (cases). We applied the resulting misclassification models to probabilistic bias analysis (PBA) of relative risks. Results: We observe that PBA implies that it is unlikely that biased misclassification due to the study subjects' states of mind could have caused the entire observed association. Indeed, the results demonstrated that doubling of risk of anxiety or depression following workplace harassment is plausible, with the unadjusted relative risk attenuated with understated uncertainty. Conclusions: It seems unlikely that risk of anxiety or depression following workplace harassment can be explained by the form of recall bias that we proposed.
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 | 0.058 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".