Seafarers’ voices during the COVID-19 crisis and beyond: when excessive workload and related impacts become a turning point to quit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 crisis locked seafarers at sea for extended periods, depriving them of the right to repatriation or shore leave, exposing them to extended contracts and working hours beyond reasonable limits, and impacting their health and mental well-being. Given the perceived ongoing degradation of seafarers’ conditions, the COVID-19 crisis seemed to have been an accelerator revealing structural deficiencies in the maritime sector. The study collected voices from the seas, analysing the aspects of workload and administrative burden and their impacts on seafarers’ well-being and retention. The research combined qualitative and quantitative methods. Seafarers (19) were interviewed, and a survey (3,959 responses) provided additional datasets. The research revealed increasing dissatisfaction with working and living conditions and pessimism among seafarers about improvements. Excessive workload, work stress and pressure exacerbated during the pandemic and for some became decisive to quit the profession. The chronic increase in workload, including paperwork, during the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly contributed to work discontent among seafarers. The increased work pressure and bureaucracy have made life at sea less acceptable for seafarers, accentuating the retention problem in the sector. The maritime sector risks losing skilled professionals if these structural deficiencies are not addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".