MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414384765 · doi:10.22215/cujs.v5i2.5332

Young Workers' Responses to Mental Ill-Health in the Workplace

2025· article· en· W4414384765 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Vettoretto, Janet Mantler, Christine Tulk

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton undergraduate journal of science. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisReflexivityPsychological interventionMental stateQualitative researchMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 have the highest prevalence of mental ill-health in North America, which typically coincides with their career launches (National Institute of Mental Health, 2023; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2023). Mental ill-health represents a state of severe functional impairment in everyday life, where an individual may qualify for a clinical diagnosis and their ability to work may be impacted (Kelloway et al., 2023; Keyes, 2002). The purpose of this research was to explore how young workers, at the beginning of their careers, describe their experiences with mental ill-health at work, how they respond to those challenges, and what that means for their work. Fifteen participants who self-identified as having mental ill-health in the workplace, either post-graduation or approaching graduation, were interviewed using a semi- structured protocol. Using reflexive thematic analysis, I identified four key themes. Most participants' mental ill-health tipping point stemmed from internal, external, and work-related factors. Participants had diverse decision-making processes for responding to mental ill-health at work, with most choosing to stay despite their mental health challenges. Notably, all participants — whether they stayed, quit, or took a leave of absence —reported mental health improvements attributed to learning to transition into the workforce, mitigate harmful workplace stressors, and cultivate realistic workplace expectations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueCarleton undergraduate journal of science.Same topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207