MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412977657 · doi:10.57109/306

Évaluation du stress selon le questionnaire de Karasek, chez les fonctionnaires marocains

2025· article· fr· W4412977657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCES · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the assessment of occupational stress within several Moroccan ministerial departments, using Karasek's model, which analyzes stress through psychological demand, decision latitude, and social support.The study was conducted with 529 civil servants in administrative positions and reveals a predominance of the so-called "job strain" profile, characterized by high demand combined with low autonomy-an indication of a particularly concerning level of stress.The results highlight a low decision latitude for the majority of employees, reflecting a lack of autonomy in task execution, as well as insufficient social support, especially from hierarchical superiors.These findings are particularly pronounced among women and younger civil servants.The study also includes the translation into Arabic and the standardization of the Canadian-French version of the Karasek Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), with the aim of adapting it to the Moroccan context.Based on the results obtained, concrete actions can subsequently be proposed to prevent work-related stress in the public sector.These actions could focus in particular on the implementation of more participatory management, the strengthening of continuing training, and the establishment of psychological support tailored to the organizational specificities of the Moroccan public sector.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCESSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207