Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize the lessons from both occupational health and health promotion, to improve workplace health. APPROACH: This article briefly outlines the evolution in defining and understanding health promotion as well as current thinking in occupational health and safety. It also discusses an approach taken in the healthcare sector in British Columbia, Canada, where evidence-based practices and collaboration became the cornerstones to bringing about change and achieve impressive cost-beneficial results in healthcare workforce health. CONCLUSION: Traditionally, workplace health promotion and occupational health and safety have been two solitudes. Workplace health promotion is rooted in "wellness" and healthy lifestyle choices, while occupational health is heavily dictated by workplace health and safety requirements and legislation. Recently however, there has been increasing recognition of the need for a more holistic approach that focusses on workplace culture, addressing both primary and secondary prevention [1], as well as interventions aimed both at the individual as well as the organisation [2].
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 | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".