Notice bibliographique
Résumé
other words, they [pets] make us feel betted--Sable, 2013, p. 94. Tony Treanor, Director of Human Resources at Northwestern Counseling & Support Services (NCSS), was faced with making an important policy decision. Employees at his Vermont-based nonprofit human services agency wanted to bring to work. At different times clients and staff have wanted to bring pets into our facilities, he said. Treanor, a pet owner himself, was open to the idea but was concerned about the consequences of allowing in the workplace. For example, would all employees and clients welcome at NCSS? How would people who fear or are allergic to react to in the workplace? NCSS currently didn't have a written policy addressing the issue. We do not have a policy but, as a rule, we allow pets in the workplace, Treanor noted. That is by choice with us so that we can bend as we may need or want to. Treanor added that employees had, on occasion, brought a new puppy or dog to work if they had a veterinary appointment during the workday. Confounding the issue was that service had long been permitted at NCSS. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required that service be permitted where the public is allowed. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) defines service as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities (ADA Requirements, 2011). DOJ guidelines made a distinction between service and pets characterizing service as trained working animals that provided a service not merely comfort or emotional support. Should Treanor continue with no official policy, adopt a policy permitting dogs, or should he adopt a written policy prohibiting them? Should he maintain the current distinction between service and pets? Adopting an informal don't ask, tell policy on at work was also an option. Concerned with maintaining good employee morale, Treanor researched the issue of in the workplace in order to make a recommendation to members of the NCSS leadership team. Northwestern Counseling & Support Services Founded in 1958, NCSS was a private nonprofit human services agency whose mission was to ensure that the residents of Franklin and Grand Isle Counties have access to high quality services, which promote healthy living and emotional well-being (Northwestern, 2015). NCSS provided over 75 community mental health programs to children, adolescents, and adults in Northwestern Vermont near Lake Champlain and the Canadian border. These programs were designed to help Vermonters with behavioral or emotional problems; mental and/or developmental disabilities; autism; and substance abuse problems. Services were provided in schools, homes, at a family center in St. Albans, Vermont, and at a parent-child center in Alburg, Vermont. The agency's administrative offices were located in St. Albans. NCSS was accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), an independent accreditor of health and human service agencies. In fiscal year 2013, NCSS had a budget of $32 million and had 505 employees-300 of which worked off site in the community. NCSS's budget was spent on Developmental Services (41%); Children, Youth and Family Services (39%); Adult Behavioral Services (16%); Crisis Services (4%); and Administration ( Pet Ownership Americans love pets. In 2012, sixty-two percent of U.S. households (164 million) had at least one pet. Forty-seven percent had at least one dog while 46% had at least one cat (Humane Society, 2013). Additionally, Herzog (2010) reported that in 2009, Americans shared their homes with 15 million birds, 14 million reptiles, 16 million small mammals, and 180 million fish. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».