Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of 142 Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) from across Canada found a vibrant range of programming. The focus of programming remained upon the individual provided by professionals, but there were a significant minority of EAPs that had branched out and were offering services to enhance organizational wellness. All programs offered voluntary assistance with one third having a formal referral route and one third including mandated counseling for performance issues. The majority of organizations were using third-party counseling services external to the workplace though one third of the programs still employed internal counselors whereas a minority still had active peer components. The study clearly indicated the lack of utility for capping counseling services and found that the average use of uncapped services was less than the artificial ceilings the majority of organizations had placed upon the counseling that was allowed to be provided to employees. There was a lack of uniformity in terms of how utilization rates were calculated underscored by the finding that there were more than 20 different definitions in use for what a case was. This is a clear example of the need for the EAP field to come together to develop agreement upon key empirical fundamentals for the profession. The study also discovered a drift away from essential program underpinnings including fewer joint labor-management committees to administer programs, less development of formal EAP policies to govern programs, and fewer organizations engaging in new employee orientation and ongoing promotion and staff training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".