A quantitative examination of sleep quality, burnout, psychological distress, and social support availability of electrical workers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical workers experience difficult psychosocial working conditions that may expose them to poor mental health outcomes. This study aims to explore the relationships between psychological distress, access to social support, burnout, and sleep quality in Canadian electrical workers. A 30-item cross-sectional survey including the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scale, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, and social support questions from the WHO-QoL-BREF were completed by 118 electrical workers. Data was analyzed to determine differences between groups, correlations between variables, and to identify predictors of poor sleep quality. No significant differences were found in burnout scores and subjective sleep quality between apprentices, electricians, and contractors. Apprentices reported being more psychologically distressed than electricians ( p = 0.005) and contractors ( p < 0.001). Electrical workers preferred social support from spouses, family, or friends when things get tough at work. Poor sleep quality was correlated with personal burnout ( r = 0.45), work-related burnout ( r = 0.37), and psychological distress ( r = 0.39); however, these factors did not predict poor sleep quality. The study suggests a need for improved interpersonal communication, stress management, and help-giving behavior among electrician-apprentice and contractor-apprentice relationships in the workplace. Future research should explore the cultural and social dynamics between workers to better understand their impacts on health and wellbeing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".